Modernizing U.S. Strategic Offensive Forces: Costs, Effects, and Alternatives

Abstract : United States strategic forces are primarily intended to deter the Soviet Union from initiating a nuclear war. To do so, U.S. policy calls for them to be able to survive a Soviet nuclear strike and retaliate in an appropriate and timely manner. Since the 1960s, the Soviets have upgraded and significantly expanded the capabilities of their strategic forces. The Administration believes that in response the United States must increase not only the numbers of its forces and their chance of surviving a Soviet strike, but also their destructive capability, endurance, and responsiveness. Indeed, modernizing and upgrading the strategic forces and their associated command and control has been one of the highest priorities of the Administration's defense program. The Administration has already substantially completed one wave of strategic procurement, including the first 50 MX missiles to be placed in existing silos, B-1B bombers, and the majority of new Trident submarines. When fully fielded, these systems will increase available strategic warheads by roughly 25 percent above 1981 funded warhead levels. The Administration plans a second wave of procurement that may well cost more than the first. The broad scope of the program, coupled with its substantial cost and limits on Congressional willingness to increase total defense spending, is likely to generate sharp debate.