September 2024
By Steven Andreasen 

At a time of heightened global tensions, when a handful of leaders with only a few minutes of decision time could determine the world’s fate, the next U.S. president must prioritize nuclear risk reduction. Faster, more powerful delivery systems and new technologies, including cyber and artificial intelligence, are increasing the risk of nuclear blunders.¹ The best way to reduce these risks is global nuclear failsafe.²

“Failsafe” refers to safeguards that prevent the unauthorized, accidental, or mistaken use of a nuclear weapon. In the United States, these safeguards could involve nuclear policy or force posture, such as adopting a no-first-use policy or modifying the nuclear triad. They also could include procedures that would strengthen the decision-making process for nuclear use, such as placing guardrails around the president’s sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. Further, they could involve the design of nuclear weapons or delivery systems, for example, by ensuring that they are built to prevent a terrorist from using a stolen bomb or by installing a system that would allow for the postlaunch destruction of nuclear weapons or their associated delivery systems if launched by mistake.

Hollywood has highlighted these risks through iconic performances by its biggest stars. In the 1964 movie “Failsafe,” Moscow is destroyed by a U.S. nuclear bomber due to computer error. The box-office hit “Dr. Strangelove” involves an unauthorized U.S. nuclear attack on Russia instigated by the mad commander of U.S. nuclear forces. In the 1990s, “Crimson Tide” depicted a tense standoff between a U.S. nuclear submarine captain and his executive officer over whether a U.S. nuclear strike on Russia has been properly authorized.

The epilogue to “Crimson Tide” notes that Washington was taking steps to ensure that the scenario in the movie could not happen. Those steps were mandated in an independent review by the Kirkpatrick Commission, which the George H.W. Bush administration initiated at the urging of Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.).³ In 1992 the commission authorized more than 50 steps to prevent unauthorized, accidental, or mistaken nuclear use, but that was more than 30 years ago during the digital Stone Age. Since then, the world has entered a new era, with new threats and new technologies.

The good news: In the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress mandated a new independent failsafe review.⁴ The Biden administration included a commitment to conduct this review in its Nuclear Posture Review with the results due this fall.⁵

The responsibility will fall to the next U.S. president to ensure that the review’s recommendations are implemented, to think creatively about enacting additional steps that might be needed and to institutionalize a process of future failsafe reviews to keep pace with evolving threats. Finally, the next president should make a major push to internationalize failsafe reviews in every nuclear-armed state. These reviews can be done without any agreements, treaties, or verification.

Each nation with nuclear arms has a responsibility to reduce the risk of nuclear blunders and can benefit from unilateral actions and similar actions taken by other nuclear powers. Leaders must give themselves every available tool to prevent a mistake from turning into a catastrophe.

ENDNOTES

1. Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn, “The Return of Doomsday,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 98, No. 5, (September/October 2019), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2019-08-06/return-doomsday.

2. Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group, “Advancing Global Nuclear ‘Fail-Safe,’” 
February 2023, https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/EASLG-Statement_GNFS_FINAL-022723.pdf.

3. U.S. Department of Defense, “Final Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Nuclear Risk Reduction (FARR),” n.d., https://archive.org/details/FinalReportoftheFederalAdvisory
CommitteeonNuclearFailsafeandRiskReductionFARR/mode/2up.

4. The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act states, “The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the conduct of an independent review of the safety, security, and reliability of covered nuclear systems. The Secretary shall ensure that such review is conducted in a manner similar to the review conducted by the Federal Advisory Committee on Nuclear Failsafe and Risk Reduction.” National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-81, 135 Stat. 1541 (2021).

5. The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review states, “[A]s directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, [the Department of Defense] will commission an independent review of the safety, security, and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons, [nuclear command, control, and communications], and integrated tactical warning/attack assessment systems.” U.S. Department of Defense, “2022 Nuclear Posture Review,” October 27, 2022, p. 13, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF#page=49.

Steven Andreasen, the National Security Council’s staff director for defense policy and arms control from 1993 to 2001, teaches national security policy and crisis management at the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

September 2024
By Jessica Sleight 

The next U.S. president will inherit a program to modernize each leg of the U.S. nuclear triad (intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarines, and bombers) to the tune of $1.7 trillion. The program is already marred by delays and overruns, including an 81 percent increase in the cost of the Sentinel ICBM and doubts over the ability of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to meet plutonium pit production goals. Additionally, China’s nuclear expansion and Russia’s growing reliance on nuclear coercion have fueled calls for an expanded U.S. nuclear force in the name of deterring two nuclear peer adversaries.

The next president will need to prioritize a rethinking of nuclear strategy that avoids fear-based, short-term thinking; guards against gatekeeping and steamrolling by the military-industrial complex; and takes a holistic approach to strategic deterrence. The decisions made over the next four years will shape the U.S. nuclear arsenal for decades to come.

For former President Donald Trump, the influence of the Heritage Foundation, crafters of Project 2025, cannot be overlooked. A new report by a Heritage expert calls for the nuclear modernization program to be “accelerated and expanded,” including a new road-mobile ICBM, additional nuclear-armed submarines, and new nuclear variants of hypersonic, anti-ship, and intermediate-range missiles.¹ It also calls for a small, accelerated nuclear strategy development process; the NNSA to be put on “wartime footing”; and forgoing some safety and environmental regulations in order to move quickly.

There is little justification for such steps, aside from an ambiguous “deterrence gap,” and no real consideration of budgetary impacts. Nevertheless, a second Trump administration likely would have little hesitancy with implementation, having previously introduced new capabilities, including a low-yield warhead for sea-based nuclear missiles. Following up with recommendations from the Heritage report would increase the bloated nuclear budget, threaten to replicate past harms to communities and the environment, further isolate nuclear decision-making, and place the United States squarely in a new nuclear arms race.

As a U.S. senator, Vice President Kamala Harris opposed the development of new low-yield nuclear warheads and encouraged broad interagency input into nuclear strategy development.² As vice president, Harris has not had much presence on these issues, indicating that her potential administration may follow the Biden administration’s lead.

Recently, Biden officials announced a new strategic review and consideration of options to increase deployed nuclear weapons and other adjustments to U.S. posture to address the new threat environment.³ This comes on the heels of the 2023 report produced by the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which deemed the current modernization program “necessary but not sufficient.”⁴ Although the new strategic review is necessary, such efforts traditionally fall victim to momentum, tinkering at the margins of strategy development, undervaluing discussion of risks associated with U.S. action, and shutting down perspectives that may threaten current or future programs. It will be important for a potential Harris administration to stand against such practices.

The difference between a modernization program that ensures a credible nuclear deterrent and one that needlessly throws resources at new and additional weapons starts with nuclear strategy. There are additional options for a future administration to consider. For example, taking adversarial forces off the nuclear targeting list could alleviate a so-called need for new nuclear capabilities and decrease incentives for preemptive nuclear use.

It is imperative that the next president demand in-depth analysis of all options and refrain from deferring to those that conflate supremacy with security. Sober analysis of the assumptions, risks, budget implications, impacts on local communities and the environment, and non-nuclear strategic deterrence tools can save the United States from entering an unwinnable arms race.

ENDNOTES

1. Robert Peters, “A Nuclear Posture Review for the Next Administration,” Heritage Foundation Special Report, No. 287 (July 30, 2024), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/SR287.pdf.

2. See Edward J. Markey et al., Letter to Rex W. Tillerson, James N. Mattis, and Rick Perry, July 19, 2017, https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-07-19-Markey-letter-State-Energy-DoD-NuclearPostureReview.pdf; “Harris Statement on Vote Against NDAA,” VoteSmart, June 18, 2018, https://justfacts.votesmart.org/public-statement/1257967/harris-statement-on-vote-against-ndaa/.

3. “Nuclear Threats and the Role of Allies: A Conversation With Acting Assistant Secretary Vipin Narang,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, n.d., https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-08/240801_Narang_Conversation_Secretary.pdf?VersionId=ITu9zdugiGiBfBig7gUEICXnw9nYn9yR (transcript of August 1, 2024, event).

4. Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, “America’s Strategic Posture,” October 2023, https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/a/am/americas-strategic-posture/strategic-posture-commission-report.ashx.

Jessica Sleight is the Janne E. Nolan Nuclear Security Fellow at the Truman Center for National Policy. 

September 2024
By Lynn Rusten

For 32 years, under Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has observed a moratorium on explosive nuclear weapons testing. U.S. leadership prompted other countries to cease 
testing and to complete negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996.

Today, the national security, environmental, and humanitarian benefits of what has become a global moratorium are indisputable. The five states recognized as nuclear-weapon states under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) have been observing a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1996 (1990 for the Soviet Union/Russia, 1991 for the United Kingdom, 1992 for the United States, and 1996 for China and France).

Of the world’s nine nuclear-armed states, only North Korea has tested since 1998. Between 1945 and the mid-1990s, there were approximately 2,000 explosive nuclear tests worldwide, with more than 500 tests conducted aboveground or underwater. The devasting environmental and health consequences of these tests for private citizens and veterans persist to this day, including in the United States.¹

For these and other reasons, a resumption of nuclear testing would face widespread opposition in the United States and globally. Yet, some, including the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, are suggesting that the United States do just that.²

Fortunately, there is an alternative. The United States relies on the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which uses science-based assessments of nuclear weapons to ensure confidence in the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of its nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive nuclear testing. This program has proven remarkably successful.³ Every U.S. president since Bill Clinton has determined through the SSP that resuming explosive nuclear testing is scientifically and technically unnecessary, based on the assessment and certification by the directors of the national weapons laboratories.

A return to testing for any other reason, such as to develop new nuclear weapons or create negotiating leverage with Russia or China, would be extremely shortsighted. If the United States were to resume testing, a cascade of other states—Russia, perhaps China, and more—likely would follow suit, and proliferation pressures could grow on states that currently do not have nuclear weapons but might seek them.

The United States has the most to lose from a multilateral resumption of nuclear testing because of the high confidence in its stockpile provided by the SSP without testing. Other states may think they have more to gain by developing and testing new weapon types, but this too would be shortsighted.

A return to testing, particularly by any of the five NPT nuclear-weapon states, also risks unraveling the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. The commitment to conclude a test ban treaty was central to achieving the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995. A return to nuclear testing would seriously erode the credibility of the nuclear-weapon states’ commitment to the NPT and their obligation to work toward nuclear disarmament. It also would exacerbate mounting frustrations among the non-nuclear-weapon states.

The next president should recognize the national security benefits of upholding the U.S. moratorium on explosive nuclear testing and encouraging all nuclear-armed states to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear testing. Beyond that, the president should advance the longer-term goal of U.S. ratification of the CTBT and work with other states to bring the treaty into force. The alternative, a resumption of nuclear testing in their backyards and beyond, will never be welcomed by the American people or the international community.

ENDNOTES

1. “Downwinders and the Radioactive West,” PBS, October 3, 2022, https://www.pbs.org/video/downwinders-and-the-radioactive-west-usugap/; Morgan Knibbe, “The Atomic Soldiers,” The New York Times, February 12, 2019.

2. Robert C. O’Brien, “The Return of Peace Through Strength: Making the Case for Trump’s Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 103, No. 4 (July/August 2024), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-peace-strength-trump-obrien.

3. “Managing an Arsenal Without Nuclear Testing: An Interview With Jill Hruby of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 53, No. 10 (December 2023): 14-18.

Lynn Rusten is vice president for the Global Nuclear Policy Program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. 

September 2024
By Amy J. Nelson

How the candidates should handle Russia and its nuclear modernization program centers on two important questions: What should U.S. nuclear policy be in light of sovereign states that break from the status quo, particularly with respect to the nuclear order? How can the United States best prepare for nuclear eventualities resulting from Russia’s modernization plan, given that Russia no longer is constrained by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and perhaps even the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)?

Russia’s aggressive actions over the past decade signal a departure from the major powers’ norms of behavior, which historically have included good-faith participation in international institutions and promotion of a rules-based order. Russia’s revisionist and risk-seeking tendencies include incursions into sovereign states, exerting undue influence over its neighbors, and claiming territory in states that flank NATO. Its behavior tracks an equally troubling course for nuclear norms. In the mid-2010s, Russia violated the INF Treaty, which banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, with its 9M729 missile. Russia denied the violation and refused to provide transparency into the nuclear weapons system or to modify it in any way. The United States eventually withdrew from the treaty because of Russian noncompliance.¹

In 2022, Russia suspended U.S. inspections under New START after the West imposed sanctions in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.² In February 2023, Russia escalated its noncompliance by suspending participation in New START more broadly, halting inspections and data sharing. It stated, however, that it would still respect the treaty’s limits. The United States responded by halting its own obligations under the treaty, including ceasing to share certain data on missile launches and to participate in inspections.³

Additionally, Russia has been accused of providing nuclear assistance and technologies to Iran and North Korea and blocking or weakening nuclear nonproliferation language in UN Security Council resolutions. Russia also has occupied the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, using the facility as a nuclear shield, violating norms concerning the protection of civilian infrastructure in wartime and increasing the risk of a nuclear accident.⁴

Russia’s most risky violation of nuclear norms may be its threatened nuclear use. This has included statements that Russia might use nuclear weapons if its own security is threatened and signals that it might be willing to escalate its war in Ukraine from a conventional conflict to a nuclear one.⁵ The United States has condemned such rhetoric.⁶

Meanwhile, Russia continues its military modernization plans, including for its nuclear forces. Although aimed at optimizing conventional forces for quick campaigns and decisive outcomes, these plans also involve the development of novel strategic weapons, including nuclear-powered cruise missiles, nuclear-powered “torpedoes,” and a hypersonic boost-glide system. These destabilizing systems are designed to evade U.S. missile defenses and complicate traditional deterrence calculations.⁷

Such developments highlight shortcomings with and challenges for U.S. nuclear policy. Russia’s saber-rattling underscores the paradox of possessing nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes, which requires signaling to an adversary a willingness to use them, but then balking at threats associated with their use. Because disarmament is not feasible in the near term, the United States must work with the four other main nuclear-weapon states to redefine the obligation of responsible nuclear powers to uphold deterrence norms.

Further, Russia is pursuing its exotic nuclear systems with no formal Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in place, only an informal moratorium that is weakening. Russia signed the treaty in 1996, ratified it in 2000, then withdrew ratification in 2023. The United States signed the treaty in 1996 but never ratified. Ratifying the CTBT could prove an important tool in constraining Russia’s development of novel nuclear weapons.

ENDNOTES

1.  Shannon Bugos, “U.S. Completes INF Treaty Withdrawal,” Arms Control Today, September 2019, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal.

2.  Shannon Bugos, “Russia Further Pauses New START Inspections,” Arms Control Today, September 2022, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-09/news/russia-further-pauses-new-start-inspections.

3.  Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability, U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Countermeasures in Response to Russia’s Violations of the New START Treaty,” June 1, 2023, https://www.state.gov/u-s
-countermeasures-in-response-to-russias-violations-of-the-new-start-treaty/.

4.  Amy J. Nelson and Chinon Norteman, “What to Do About the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant,” Brookings: Order From Chaos blog, March 23, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-to-do-about-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant/.

5.  Jim Sciutto, “Exclusive: U.S. Prepared ‘Rigorously’ for Potential Russian Nuclear Strike in Ukraine in Late 2022, Officials Say,” CNN, March 9, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/politics/us-prepared-rigorously-potential-russian-nuclear-strike-ukraine/index.html.

6.  “Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan for the Arms Control Association (ACA) Annual Forum,” The White House, June 2, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/06/02/remarks-by-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-for-the-arms-control-association-aca-annual-forum/.

7.  Matthew Kroenig, Mark Massa, and Christian Trotti, “Russia’s Exotic Nuclear Weapons and Implications for the United States and NATO,” Atlantic Council Issue Brief, March 2020, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Russias-Exotic-Nuclear-Weapons.pdf.

Amy J. Nelson is a visiting fellow in the International Security Program at New America and an adjunct faculty at Georgetown University.