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 »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
8 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×