Global-Strike Arms Pose Little-Recognized Stability Risks: Report

Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
Sept. 3, 2013, 9:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — A new re­port warns that fu­ture U.S. non­nuc­lear rap­id-strike arms could pose a little-un­der­stood risk of cross­ing trip­wires to glob­al con­flict if a ma­jor mil­it­ary power could not de­term­ine wheth­er it is be­ing tar­geted in a quickly un­fold­ing at­tack.

“Non-bal­list­ic CP­GS weapons, which are highly man­euver­able, could pos­sibly lead an ob­serving state to wrongly con­clude that an in­com­ing weapon was head­ing for its ter­rit­ory,” states a Carne­gie En­dow­ment ana­lys­is, ex­plain­ing how so-called “con­ven­tion­al prompt glob­al strike” arms might pose what it terms “des­tin­a­tion am­bi­gu­ity.”

A for­eign na­tion with ad­vanced early-warn­ing in­tel­li­gence cap­ab­il­it­ies — such as Rus­sia fields today and China may have in the fu­ture — also might be un­cer­tain wheth­er a U.S. man­euver­able, fast-strike weapon is on the verge of tak­ing out its own atom­ic weapons, ac­cord­ing James Ac­ton’s re­port, “Sil­ver Bul­let? Ask­ing the Right Ques­tions About Con­ven­tion­al Prompt Glob­al Strike.”

“A state could mis­takenly be­lieve that its nuc­le­ar forces were un­der at­tack when its con­ven­tion­al forces were really the tar­get,” a situ­ation that the au­thor calls “tar­get am­bi­gu­ity.”

“This situ­ation could arise, for in­stance, if a state’s nuc­le­ar and con­ven­tion­al as­sets were ‘en­tangled’ be­cause of dual-use com­mand-and-con­trol sys­tems,” he writes.

The risks of such mis­un­der­stand­ings could run high, he says.

“A state that feared its crit­ic­al weapon sys­tems — par­tic­u­larly nuc­le­ar weapons — were vul­ner­able to a pree­mpt­ive CP­GS strike could feel pres­sure to use or threaten to use those weapons first, [cre­at­ing] crisis in­stabil­ity,” ac­cord­ing to the re­port.

Ac­ton, a seni­or as­so­ci­ate in Carne­gie’s Nuc­le­ar Policy Pro­gram, ar­gues that while there has been much de­bate on Cap­it­ol Hill about po­ten­tially destabil­iz­ing as­pects of de­ploy­ing and us­ing con­ven­tion­al prompt-strike weapons, con­cerns have fo­cused too much on war­head am­bi­gu­ity when a broad­er set of press­ing is­sues should be ad­dressed.

U.S. law­makers in past years re­jec­ted a concept for con­ven­tion­al prompt glob­al strike that would have swapped out nuc­le­ar war­heads for con­ven­tion­al front ends on Tri­dent D-5 sub­mar­ine-based bal­list­ic mis­siles. They cited con­cerns that Rus­sia or China might someday de­tect a U.S. Tri­dent launch and, un­aware which type of war­head the mis­sile car­ried, could re­spond pre­cip­it­ously with atom­ic arms.

With the “Con­ven­tion­al Tri­dent Modi­fic­a­tion” ef­fort put on the back burn­er, war­head am­bi­gu­ity is no longer the most press­ing crisis-sta­bil­ity is­sue fa­cing the de­vel­op­ment of prompt-strike weapons, Ac­ton ar­gues.

An ar­ray of tech­no­lo­gic­al al­tern­at­ives re­mains for the non­nuc­lear prompt-strike mis­sion. Those in­clude:

— The Army’s Ad­vanced Hy­per­son­ic Weapon, a fu­tur­ist­ic cap­ab­il­ity that, if tech­nic­ally feas­ible, could be either land- or sea-based;

— The Hy­per­son­ic Tech­no­logy Vehicle-2, de­veloped by the De­fense Ad­vanced Re­search Pro­jects Agency but re­cently put back in­to risk-mit­ig­a­tion after test fail­ures;

— A Navy Sea-Launched In­ter­me­di­ate Range Bal­list­ic Mis­sile, which Ac­ton re­ports could carry either a hy­per­son­ic glider or steer­able reentry vehicle, but which re­cently ex­per­i­enced some bur­eau­crat­ic set­backs; and

— An Air Force High Speed Strike Weapon, an air-launched hy­per­son­ic cruise mis­sile that Ac­ton de­scribes as be­ing de­veloped out­side of the prompt glob­al strike pro­gram.

Ac­ton urges the De­fense De­part­ment to fully ex­plore the pro­spect­ive strengths and draw­backs of each op­tion, keep­ing in mind that each al­tern­at­ive may pose less risk of one kind of am­bi­gu­ity dur­ing a crisis while ag­grav­at­ing am­bi­gu­ity in an­oth­er way.

“The most dis­cussed stra­tegic risk is the pos­sib­il­ity that a CP­GS weapon could be mis­taken for a nuc­le­ar weapon,” states the phys­i­cist in the 197-page doc­u­ment. “Oth­er es­cal­a­tion risks are, however, more ser­i­ous.”

As Ac­ton ex­plains it, “An ob­serving state might mis­takenly be­lieve that a CP­GS weapon was head­ing for its ter­rit­ory, not only ex­acer­bat­ing the risk of war­head am­bi­gu­ity but also cre­at­ing new risks of es­cal­a­tion.”

The re­port’s bot­tom-line re­com­mend­a­tion for the Pentagon is “to look at the ques­tion of CP­GS ac­quis­i­tion hol­ist­ic­ally,” the schol­ar told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire in an e-mailed re­sponse to ques­tions.

“On the one hand, there is a very plaus­ible ar­gu­ment that CP­GS weapons will en­hance de­terrence and make war less likely,” he said. “On the oth­er hand, the po­ten­tial es­cal­at­ory im­plic­a­tions of boost-glide weapons have been neg­lected.”

Though Pentagon of­fi­cials dis­cuss an ar­ray of counter-ter­ror­ism and counter-pro­lif­er­a­tion tar­gets that might be the fo­cus of non­nuc­lear prompt-strike weapons, the De­fense De­part­ment has not form­ally de­term­ined for what mis­sions these arms would be pro­cured, he states in the re­port.

Bey­ond the stub­born am­bi­gu­ity chal­lenges, “there are ques­tions about the mil­it­ary util­ity of can­did­ate CP­GS tech­no­lo­gies, es­pe­cially in the ab­sence of needed en­abling cap­ab­il­it­ies,” he told GSN, re­fer­ring to com­mand-and-con­trol sys­tems; in­tel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and re­con­nais­sance re­quire­ments; and post-at­tack battle dam­age as­sess­ment sys­tems.

“And,” Ac­ton said, “there needs to be a com­par­is­on of wheth­er non-prompt al­tern­at­ives might be more cost ef­fect­ive.”

What We're Following See More »
PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
SHUT DOWN MISLEADING FALSEHOODS
Facebook To Cut Down On Govt-Sponsored Info Campaigns
5 hours ago
BREAKING

Facebook "outlined new measures it is taking to combat what it calls 'information operations' that go well beyond the phenomenon known as fake news" on Thursday. Facebook acknowledged that there are governments using its platform as a tool to launch propaganda information campaigns and "manipulate public opinion in other countries. ... Facebook suspended 30,000 accounts in France ahead of last Sunday’s first-round presidential election."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
9 hours ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
IN 2014
Pentagon Warned Flynn Not To Accept Foreign Payments
11 hours ago
BREAKING
WOULD PUSH DEADLINE TO MAY 5
One-Week Spending Bill On The Table
11 hours ago
BREAKING

Members of Congress are eyeing a one-week spending bill which would keep the government open past the Friday night deadline, giving lawmakers an extra week to iron out a long-term deal to fund the government. Without any action, the government would run out of funding starting at midnight Saturday. “I am optimistic that a final funding package will be completed soon," said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login