Unilaterally Cutting U.S. ICBMs Would Undermine Prospects for Arms Control
.
By Matthew R. Costlow
December 20, 2018
It is now fashionable among some in the defense community to question the need for the nuclear triad of submarines, bombers, and silo-based missiles. Critics have focused heavily on U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) most recently. Though by far the cheapest of the three legs to maintain,[1] former defense officials like Secretary of Defense William Perry and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright argue that U.S. ICBMs should be scrapped unilaterally – mostly due to their cost and “hair-trigger†alert status.[2] Others believe ICBMs are redundant and perhaps easily disabled.[3]
Setting aside for the moment the convincing cases made by analysts like professor Matthew Kroenig and Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Roger Burg for retaining the U.S. ICBM force,[4] this article will examine the self-defeating nature of unilaterally cutting U.S. ICBMs in the arena of nuclear arms control. In short, I argue that doing so would likely make future arms control agreements improbable and the U.S. less secure.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/12/20/unilaterally_cutting_us_icbms_would_undermine_prospects_for_arms_control_114049.html
