U.S. arms subs with ‘low-yield’ warheads
The Pentagon announced that low-yield nuclear warheads had been put into operation on American submarines, marking the first time the U.S. military has armed underwater vessels with warheads of such yield since the George H.W. Bush administration.
In a statement released Tuesday, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood confirmed that the W76-2 low-yield warhead had been fielded on submarine-launch ballistic missiles. As a rationale, Mr. Rood cited the need to counter potential adversaries such as Russia that maintain similarly small warheads and could seek to use them in a limited nuclear attack to gain an advantage over the United States.
The move comes over the objections of top Democrats and antinuclear advocates who have called it dangerous.
Mr. Rood said the W76-2 strengthens deterrence against adversaries and gives the United States a low-yield option that is more survivable in the event of a nuclear war. The U.S. military already possesses a low-yield option in the B61 gravity bomb, but that warhead and its variants can be launched only from aircraft, which the Pentagon believes could be stymied by sophisticated Russian air defenses.
The introduction of the W76-2 on American submarines, planned since the beginning of the Trump administration, “demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario,” Mr. Rood added.
In a review of nuclear policy overseen by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the Pentagon determined that there was a gap in U.S. nuclear capabilities vis-a-vis Russia.
Officials argued that Russia could employ one of its many small nuclear weapons in a limited attack against an American ally, potentially forcing the United States to choose between responding with a high-yield strategic nuclear warhead, all but guaranteeing full-scale nuclear war, or returning fire with a conventional weapon and risking embarrassment or defeat. The Pentagon refers to this strategy, which it has attributed to Russia, as “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to win.”
Top Russian officials have denied such a strategy exists. They have said Russian nuclear doctrine calls for the use of nuclear weapons only when one is used first by an adversary against Russia or its allies, or when the use of conventional weapons against Russia puts the state at risk. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia doesn’t envision conducting a pre-emptive strike with nuclear weapons.
Current and former U.S. officials, however, argue that Russian writings on nuclear doctrine and exercises demonstrate the existence of an “escalate to deescalate” strategy, which could back the United States into a corner if the U.S. military lacks weaponry to respond in a likefor-like manner.
“It’s necessary to have this capability to close a gap in the credibility of our deterrence, because you have to put yourself in the mind not of some nuclear disarmament advocate but of a Russian general or the Kremlin,” said Tim Morrison, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former senior director for weapons of mass destruction on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump.