Front and Center: August 19, 2024

WHY CONGRESS SHOULDN’T FUND A NEW SEA-LAUNCHED NUKE

It’s a $252 million missile system the U.S. Navy doesn’t even want, and that goes against sound military doctrine, so why does its funding keep getting brought back up for a vote in Congress? Senior Policy Director John Erath evaluates the (lack of) merit for the nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and why some in Congress just can’t seem to let it go in his latest piece in Just Security.

“The Reagan-era doctrines that drove deployment of SLCM-N no longer hold,” he writes. “Why, then, are some trying to turn back the clock to the days of Hair Metal? Simply put, it is due to the perception that the U.S. may be at the beginning of a new nuclear arms race. With China building up its nuclear forces and Russia developing new and exotic nuclear capabilities, perceptions of global stability are getting worse. As the U. S. continues to modernize its own nuclear forces, it may seem natural to ask if the capability added by a renewed SLCM-N program makes sense.

“On the surface (always a dangerous place for submarines), there is a kind of case to be made. The main argument in favor of the SLCM-N is that it would provide a flexible nuclear option for responding to limited or regional nuclear aggression. Even if one accepts that a nuclear war could be limited, U.S. forces already have a variety of weapons at their disposal, including air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and advanced conventional weapons, which allow decision-makers to tailor an appropriate response. In addition, lower-yield nuclear weapons are already available on ballistic missile submarines. Therefore, the range of potential contingencies during which a commander might want a SLCM-N capability appears to be so narrow as to approach insignificance.”

Further, he writes, adding the SLCM-N capability to submarines would diminish the Navy’s warfighting readiness by sacrificing existing capabilities to “field a weapon that is all but unusable.”

NORTH KOREA DEPLOYS LAUNCHERS TO BORDER, MIGHT BE NEARING TACTICAL NUKE COMPLETION

In recent weeks, North Korea has experienced severe flooding as a result of substantial summer rainfall, and reports have indicated that factories connected to the country’s nuclear weapons program have been impacted as a result.

During this same time, leader Kim Jong Un announced the deployment of 250 nuclear-capable missile launchers to frontline military units at the North-South border. Analysts assess that the mobile truck launchers are likely intended to fire short-range missiles capable of striking most, if not all, of South Korea. Pyongyang’s emphasis in recent months has been to highlight its growing interest in tactical nuclear weapons. Late last month, the South Korean Defense Minister remarked that the North was nearing completion of the development of a tactical nuclear weapon.

NUCLEAR SHADOWS OVER SOUTH ASIA: STRATEGIC INSTABILITIES IN THE CHINA-INDIA-PAKISTAN TRIAD

While most global attention focuses on the U.S.-Russia-China nuclear triad, more attention should be paid to the China-India-Pakistan nuclear triad, Research Analyst Shawn Rostker argues in his latest piece in The Diplomat.

“Long considered the most likely theater for nuclear use, the same precarities, tensions, and territorial disputes that defined the three-way relationship between India, China, and Pakistan decades ago continue to shape their interactions,” he writes. “A quarter-century after the nuclearization of the Asian Subcontinent, a three-sided combination of evolving nuclear postures, military-technological modernizations, and strategic competition now compound these drivers of instability and are bringing the region closer to a nuclear crisis.”

There are opportunities for cooperation and deescalation, he writes, including updating existing agreements and establishing a trilateral Nuclear Risk Reduction Center.

“There is a pressing need for the United States and the international community to extend their diplomacy beyond the primary concerns of China and Russia and to observe and address the fragile security dynamics in South Asia.”

SITUATION AT ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR PLANT IS A ‘PLAY WITH FIRE’

On August 11, news broke out of a fire at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) in Ukraine. Although the six nuclear reactors at the plant are in a state of cold shutdown, the risk of a nuclear disaster remains elevated due to the ongoing military activities in the vicinity.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly warned about the “untenable” situation at the plant. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has called for the establishment of a nuclear safety and security protection zone around the facility, emphasizing that the current situation is a “play with fire” and that the safety of the ZNPP “hangs by a thread.”

While both sides blamed each other, “it seems absurd that Ukraine would risk a nuclear incident on its own territory, whereas Russia celebrates its history of destroying things to deny them to an enemy,” writes Senior Policy Director John Erath in his latest post on the Center’s Nukes of Hazard blog.

Erath suggests the Russian occupiers of the plant set the fire themselves a week after Ukraine made a surprise incursion into Russian territory, which showed that Russia was not as close to victory as it would have people believe and that Ukraine can succeed when properly resourced. It was also embarrassing to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Given Russia’s policy of using nuclear threats to further its war aims, it seems consistent that Moscow would try to slow Ukraine’s momentum by once again calling attention to a possible nuclear disaster. With the war news largely negative for Moscow, the Russian leadership needed a story to divert the media’s attention from its failure to stop Ukraine’s incursion, and explosions and fire at Europe’s largest nuclear plant would be enough to grab headlines. Should the war continue and Russian casualties mount, further attempts to raise the nuclear stakes should be anticipated… Russia needs to hear from the international community that playing with fire around nuclear reactors is unacceptable.”

A PUBLIC APPEAL FOR PEACE THROUGH CRANES

Every August, people across the world commemorate the anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One way is by participating in the #CranesForOurFuture social media campaign. This campaign allows participants to spread a message of peace and hopes for a world without nuclear weapons.

The Center partnered with the Nuclear Threat Initiative again this year to increase congressional participation in the campaign. It is clear from our outreach that Members of Congress are aware of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. We are proud to report that we doubled the number of Members of Congress who participated in the campaign compared to last year.

NEW ON THE NUKES OF HAZARD BLOG: PRINTERS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Printers of Mass Destruction: Seeking Pathways to Curb the Threat of Additive Manufacturing: Writing as part of the Center’s Next Up in Arms Control blog series meant to highlight new ideas and perspectives from those outside of the traditional arms control community, UN Youth Champion for Disarmament and Georgia Institute of Technology graduate student Ivan Siluianov tackles an emerging problem in proliferation: can 3D printing and additive manufacturing help create a nuclear bomb, and how can we regulate these industries? Siluianov argues for greater cooperation between public and private industries to foster “a non-proliferation culture within the burgeoning industry.” As this industry continues to flourish, we must stay ahead of potential proliferation concerns.