The Pentagon is so focused on nukes, it may lose its conventional military edge
"While we didn't build anything new for 25 years, and neither did our allies, others did - including Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, and for a period of time, Iran," he said, as the Miami Herald notes.
But according to Kingston Reif, the Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association, the implication that the US's arsenal isn't "up to snuff" is "exaggerating, misleading, and flat out wrong."
Contrary to Carter's claim that the US must "correct for decades of underinvestment," Reif told Business Insider "the US has been very busy over the past 25 years, spending hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain and modernize nuclear forces."
On the charge of the US falling behind other nation's nuclear forces, "Carter ought to be asked if he would trade the US's arsenal for the Russian's," said Reif, who maintains that no US nuclear officers would consider trading places.
Of course, Russia in particular has made headlines lately with their nuclear modernization saber rattling by recently unveiling the "Satan 2" intercontinental ballistic missile, but that owes mainly to timing, says Reif.
Additionally, as Business Insider has previously reported, Russia's nuclear missiles aren't meant to last as long as the US's.
As it stands, the US has more deployed nuclear weapons than any other nation, more even than US Stratcom commanders deem necessary to defend the US and deter attacks. Furthermore, "current planned US investment in nuclear systems is unrivaled," said Reif.
So why does Carter try to spin nuclear modernization as the US playing catch up?
"It's clear that much of the DoD leadership and officials in charge of the nuclear missions have a status quo/don't rock the boat mindset when it comes to further reducing the role of, number of, and spending on nuclear weapons," said Reif.
The DoD does not set nuclear policy however, the White House does. The policy from the top currently advocates for levels of nuclear armament and funding that Reif and other nuclear security experts find "unnecessary and unsustainable." Reif says some members of the DoD, including Carter, have taken to advocating for such a level of modernization out of "bureaucratic inertia and budget self-interest."
But this is hardly the time to advocate for a pet project. Over the next 30 years, if current modernization pushes go through, the US will spend a trillion dollars on updating the arsenal, with roughly half of that due in the next 20 years.
These expenses are due to hit in the mid 2020s, at which time other, conventional forces will need modernization as well. The impending cost storm even has a name for military planners at the Pentagon - the bow wave.
One way to lessen the blow of the coming bow wave, according to Reif, would be to "make sensible, prudent adjustments to the current plan that still allow the US to maintain a credible deterrent."
As it stands, the Obama administration has determined they have a third more deployed weapons than necessary under the existing nuclear disarmament treaties. These weapons cost billions to maintain.
Reif gave the concrete example of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile, a new nuclear-capable cruise missile being developed by the US. It's due to cost about $20-25 billion. The missile will deploy on long range US bombers, like the B-52, the B-2, and the coming B-21. And the missile's development is quite possibly both redundant and destabilizing.
Therefore the B-61, a much cheaper bomb that's already built, can essentially do the same work as the LRSO.
"In our view, a new fleet of [air-launched cruise missiles] are unnecessary and redundant.," said Reif. Additionally, it's "difficult, almost impossible, to discern between a nuclear or conventional cruise missile," so the possibility exists that an adversary seeing a US cruise missile launch could misinterpret the situation, and respond with a nuclear attack.
Reif, and other experts in his field, believe that while a nuclear deterrent has value, the majority of the US's warfighting and deterrent capabilities need to rest with conventional forces - the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force.
The US needs to buy new F-35s and bombers for the Air Force. They need new submarines and littoral combat ships in the Navy. The Army and Marines use a tank that first came out in 1979.
Simply put, something has got to give. If the US cannot trim down its budget, conventional forces could suffer heavily.
Meanwhile, nuclear weapons doing their job - deterrence - never get used. In contrast, the US armed forces today are in constant use and spread thin across the globe.
Pushing through with the US's plans for modernization under the guise of "catching up" to potential nuclear adversaries would "rob Peter to pay Paul," in that the funding is also desperately needed for conventional forces that have grown stagnant under sequestration.
And ultimately, through trying to modernize all areas of the military at once, the bow wave actually increases costs across the board.
"By trying to rebuild the entire nuclear arsenal at the same time, we're going to increase the cost of each program," said Reif.
"Each program is going to get delayed, the program is going to have to be called back ultimately, but not before billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted. If this administration isn't up the task, the next administration needs to put us on a more sustainable path that also allows the US to retain a significant deterrent" with both conventional, and nuclear forces, said Reif.