Why Does the United States Need a More Flexible Nuclear Force?
Critical Questions by Heather Williams and Lachlan MacKenzie
Published April 3, 2025
Deterrence is emerging as a theme for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, but questions remain about the administration’s ability to deliver and maintain the nation’s nuclear deterrent. At the Air Force Summit on March 19, Hegseth commented on the “sense of urgency” and importance of next-generation airpower as “the decisive factor in whether or not we truly deter our peer [adversaries] of the 21st century.” A week later on March 26, Strategic Command Commander General Anthony Cotton appeared before Congress to speak to the nuclear-specific aspect of that deterrent and emphasized the challenge of sustaining existing nuclear systems while also completing, “the multigenerational, decades-long modernization of all three legs of the nuclear deterrent and its critical [nuclear command, control, and communications] systems.”
The military services support nuclear modernization. On March 27, Troy Meink, the nominee for secretary of the Air Force, along with Michael Duffey, the nominee for undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, both pledged to focus on nuclear modernization, if confirmed, as the “backbone” of the nation’s deterrent as it faces a series of challenges. A month earlier, on February 27, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan addressed concerns about delays in production of the Columbia-class submarine and said, “I think the Columbia submarine program is incredibly important. It is the most important nuclear deterrent we have.”
Q1: Why does the United States need to modernize its nuclear arsenal now?
A1: One theme from Cotton’s testimony was the need for flexibility—he used the word nine times in reference to the air, land, and sea legs of the nuclear triad. “Flexible response” was one of six fundamental tenets for the United States’ nuclear strategy identified by the 2023 bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission. The commission also concluded that current plans for nuclear modernization were “necessary but not sufficient.” A sense of urgency was palpable in Cotton and others’ testimony about the need not only for modernization, but also for a different nuclear posture and nuclear enterprise than the one we currently have.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-does-united-states-need-more-flexible-nuclear-force
