cuws.au.af.

mil

The
Nuclear Hell on Wheels: Examining the
Trinity Site Need for a Mobile ICBM
Papers
By Lt Col Matthew E. Dillow, USAF

cuws.au.af.mil
further reduce any incentives for prompt launch. Such an as-
And what the ICBM force gives to the president is the sessment will be part of the Department of Defense’s study of
ability to respond promptly. I think that’s still a valuable possible replacements for the current ICBM force.”4
component of the range of alternatives that we could offer The RAND Corporation has studied the cost of various op-
to the president. … I think there’s a big difference between tions for replacing the Minuteman III ICBM, and extensive
a force that you can use promptly and one that you must
writing has been done on the nation’s budget woes and fiscal
use promptly. And I no longer see us in a scenario where
we must use the ICBMs promptly. constraints.5 This paper will not delve into the affordability of a
mobile ICBM, nor will it question the need for a land-based leg
—General Robert Kehler, former Commander, of the nuclear triad. Additionally, the debate concerning the
U.S. Strategic Command1 efficacy of nuclear deterrence as a strategy is not considered, as
there are reams of well-written and clearly articulated thought
about most aspects of this topic. Though by no means a certain-
ty, it is assumed that the United States will accept the security
— Introduction —
and safety risk necessary to field a mobile ICBM should the
international security situation warrant such risk. In order to
The United States faces the troubling prospect of recapital-
assess the validity of the Nuclear Posture Review’s rationale,
izing its entire nuclear triad over the course of the next fifteen
this paper dissects the risks and rewards of a mobile ICBM
years. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has reiterated a com-
force in two attack scenarios, and argues that the Nuclear Pos-
mitment to maintaining the land-, sea-, and air-based legs of the
ture Review does not account for the vulnerability of the presi-
nation’s nuclear triad, and the Department of Defense and the
dent and of the nuclear command and control system in the face
Services are in the process of acquiring a new ballistic missile
of a surprise attack.
submarine and a new bomber.2 As part of the acquisition pro-
The final section examines the conditions that must be pre-
cess for a new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), the
sent in order to favor the fielding of a U.S. mobile ICBM force.
Air Force has asked for proposals that include alternate basing
The first condition is a change in vulnerability of the SSBN
modes such as mobile ICBMs. Pundits have ridiculed the notion
force, causing its survivability to be questioned. The second
of a mobile ICBM, based largely on its projected cost and lack
condition is the emergence of a credible conventional threat to
of utility against current threats, along with the unwillingness of
the U.S. silo-based ICBM force. The third condition is a shift in
the American people to tolerate mobile nuclear weapons on
U.S. nuclear strategy from counterforce to countervalue, to in-
their roads.3 While these arguments may have merit, they fail to
clude the adoption of a minimum credible deterrence posture.
address the fundamental issue underlying the reemergence of
Finally, a collapse of restraints imposed by current arms control
the mobile ICBM in the context of the nation’s future nuclear
agreements could spur an arms race, changing the level of ac-
force structure. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review was explicit
ceptable vulnerability for the land-based leg of the triad.
about the need to consider alternatives to silo basing for IC-
Though certain conditions could favor the deployment of a U.S.
BMs, directing the Department of Defense to “explore new
mobile ICBM force at some point in the future, the current state of
modes of ICBM basing that could enhance survivability and
the geo-strategic landscape does not support such an acquisition.

Lt Col Matthew Dillow is a student at the Air War College at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

June 2015 1 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
— Background — ble hedge against their fears of a technological or operational
failure in their ballistic submarine force.9
Defining and empirically defending the deterrence effec- In contrast to Russia’s motivation for fielding a rail-mobile
tiveness of a specific number of nuclear warheads deployed on ICBM, China and India’s fielding of mobile systems is ground-
a particular mix of weapon systems is an exercise in futility. It ed in their nuclear strategy. China and India have both openly
is more valuable to determine the kinds of capabilities that are declared a “no first use” policy, and the small size of their arse-
likely to increase the credibility of a nuclear threat to a potential nals indicates they have likely adopted a minimum credible
adversary. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review explicitly defines deterrent policy. Minimum credible deterrence is a countervalue
the strengths, weaknesses, and advantages of each of the current strategy that eschews first use of nuclear weapons. Instead, this
legs of the nuclear triad. Nuclear-armed strategic submarines strategy requires an arsenal no larger than necessary to hold just
(SSBNs) are considered the most survivable nuclear weapon enough of the adversary’s population and economy at risk in a
system in the U.S. arsenal. When on patrol at sea, they assure a retaliatory strike to deter them. Minimum credible deterrence
retaliatory capability unmatched by the other two legs of the puts a premium on the survivability of the nuclear arsenal, and
triad. Bombers are widely considered the most flexible of the the responsiveness of a silo-based ICBM force holds little value
three legs of the triad. In the context of nuclear conflict, bomb- in light of this approach. Both India and China are in the pro-
ers can be used to counter a wide range of threats, are recalla- cess of procuring a nascent submarine-launched ballistic missile
ble, and are useful for signaling intent due to their visibility.6 capability, but in the meantime they have invested in a mobile
The silo-based ICBM force is credited with responsiveness. ICBM force that poses fewer technological challenges and low-
The current ICBM alert posture, high availability rate, and se- er costs.10
cure command and control ensure they are available for execu-
tion within a very short time frame.7 Each leg of the triad pro-
vides some degree of flexibility, survivability, and responsive-
— The Contributions of a Mobile ICBM System
ness, and when combined, the nuclear triad as a whole provides to the Existing Triad —
a complementary force structure capable of providing the presi-
dent with a range of options across a spectrum of nuclear sce- Ideally, any future nuclear weapon system acquired by the
narios. This complementary force structure also provides a de- United States would maximize the attributes of flexibility, sur-
gree of hedge against unanticipated challenges, such as surprise vivability, and responsiveness. The same Nuclear Posture Re-
technological advances in anti-submarine warfare, or undetect- view that directs the study of alternate basing modes for ICBMs
ed failures in one of the primary weapon systems. For example, also emphasizes the essential attributes of the nuclear triad and
the nuclear triad does not rely wholly on the submarine force reaffirms the continuing need for all three legs of the triad into
for survivability, as a generated bomber force also provides a the foreseeable future: “Retaining all three Triad legs will best
degree of survivability. maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging
The most obvious rationale for fielding a mobile ICBM is to against technical problems or vulnerabilities.”11 So what exactly
increase survivability and assure a retaliatory capability. Four would a mobile ICBM contribute to the existing capabilities of
countries currently possess nuclear-armed ICBMs: the United the triad? Typically, a road-mobile ICBM remains in garrison
States, Russia, China, and India (Pakistan does not currently until tensions merit dispersal to the countryside. The survivabil-
have a ballistic missile capability with intercontinental range of ity of a mobile ICBM with this concept of operations depends
5,500+ kms.)8 Of those four, Russia, China, and India have all heavily on adequate intelligence and warning. In other words,
chosen to field mobile ICBM systems. When a nation’s nuclear given enough time to generate and disperse, a mobile ICBM is
arsenal is small, that nation cannot afford to absorb an attack more survivable than a silo-based ICBM; however, in a normal
that will destroy a significant portion of its deterrent force. Mo- day-to-day posture (presumably in an unhardened shelter on a
bile ICBMs rely on technology that is mature and relatively base) it is less survivable than a silo-based ICBM.12 This under-
affordable (truck and rail technology is neither complex nor standing is key to the logic behind the Nuclear Posture Review,
expensive.) In contrast, procuring and perfecting nuclear-armed as the intent is to remove the time constraint associated with a
ballistic missiles launched from a submarine is expensive, tech- “use or lose” weapon system such as a silo-based ICBM. Mo-
nologically complex, and, once fielded, vulnerable to anti- bile ICBMs are more flexible than silo-based ICBMs, as their
submarine warfare efforts of more militarily advanced nations. generation is visible and can be used to signal resolve, and they
In addition to the advantages in survivability that can generally can be repositioned to avoid overflight of neutral nations and
be realized with a mobile ICBM, each of the three nations who dropping of expended downstages in populated areas. They
have fielded them has its own unique reasons for doing so. could also be deployed near missile defense sites, thus improv-
Russia has expressed concerns about the emergence of a ing survivability.13 On the other hand, mobile ICBMs are not as
U.S. prompt global strike weapon system that could hold por- responsive as silo-based ICBMs, since their mobility compli-
tions of their nuclear arsenal at risk. Mobile ICBMs mitigate the cates command and control and involves more time-consuming
risk that the United States could destroy a portion of the Rus- steps to prepare for launch.14 Of course, a mobile ICBM is not
sian silo-based ICBM force without expending any of its treaty- as survivable as an SSBN, as flexible as a bomber, or as respon-
constrained nuclear forces. Prompt global strike is thus a desta- sive as a silo-based ICBM. The mobile ICBM is a compromise
bilizing factor, driving the Russians to counter the capability by between these three attributes, but it does not offer any clear
replacing silo-based ICBMs with less stabilizing mobile IC- advantages over other systems currently in the triad.
BMs. Mobile ICBMs give the Russians an affordable, surviva- The potential positive attributes of a mobile ICBM must be

June 2015 2 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
considered in light of the impact of shifting away from a silo- possible scenarios to test this notion, but two such scenarios
based ICBM force. Due to current treaty limitations, the number will be sufficient to illustrate and examine the risks.
of operationally deployed warheads is limited to a total of 1,550
on 700 delivery vehicles.15 If the deployment of a mobile ICBM
Scenario 1: Increased Tensions Lead to Possible Nuclear Exchange
is implemented in lieu of a silo-based ICBM force, the impact
on the number of aimpoints presented to an adversary is dra- In this scenario, tensions between the United States and
matic: Russia have built up over time, leading to a situation where a
nuclear exchange becomes a serious possibility. Intelligence
As opposed to bombers and sea-based missiles, which are sources confirm the generation of Russian nuclear forces, and
bundled onto relatively few aimpoints and may be vulnera- all signs point to an imminent nuclear attack. In response, the
ble to attack, the size, protectedness, and dispersion of United States has generated its nuclear forces to their highest
ICBM forces makes them virtually impossible to destroy state of readiness, dispersing bombers to increase survivability,
short of an all-out nuclear attack. In this way, ICBMs are
and ensuring the entire SSBN force is at sea and ready to re-
“warhead sinks,” theoretically less vulnerable and there-
fore a stronger deterrent to attack by adversaries. Because spond to presidential direction. The United States has taken
an ICBM force can only be crippled through a large and action to ensure the survivability of the president, and has max-
unmistakable nuclear attack, ICBMs provide greater clari- imized survivable nuclear command and control capability, as
ty about when a country is under attack and who the at- shown in the “Alert weapons (generated)” column in Table 1
tacker is.16 below.

The elimination of the silo-based ICBM force greatly simplifies Table 1: Nuclear Force Structure Weapons Load Under New START
enemy targeting, reducing aimpoints from 425 (assuming 420
ICBMs) to 5 (3 bomber bases and 2 SSBN bases) to effectively Alert Alert
Delivery Total
nullify the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a surprise attack.17 The quan- System vehicles warheads
weapons weapons
(day-to-day) (generated)
dary posed to adversaries by the silo-based ICBM is best under-
stood in terms of “price to attack.” If an adversary chooses to SSBN 240 1,070 713 1,070
attack the United States, they must expend 2.1 warheads for
every Minuteman III silo to ensure its destruction. Russia would
have to expend 882 of its 1,550 operationally deployed war- ICBM 420 420 420 420
heads to destroy just 420 single-warhead silo-based U.S. IC-
BMs.18 The price to attack thus discourages a first strike and Bombers 60 60 0 60
increases stability. The price to attack a garrison-based (non-
dispersed) mobile ICBM is 0.6 warheads expended for every
Total 720 1,550 1,133 1,550
warhead destroyed.19 In a crisis, an adversary may be incentiv-
ized to attack early and from a platform with less warning (such
Adapted from Arms Control Association, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces Under New
as an SSBN) in order to destroy the mobile ICBMs before they START,” Arms Control Today, July 2013. Note: New START counts each bomber as
can be dispersed. Thus the mobile ICBM does not offer the sta- one warhead, though bombers are capable of carrying more.
bilizing effect of a single-warhead, silo-based force of 420 Min-
uteman IIIs. This impact on stability must be carefully weighed While in this posture, the president receives notification
when considering future force structure. from the U.S. early warning system that an attack on the United
States has taken place, and nuclear detonation in the continental
United States will occur within minutes. What are the presi-
— The Impact of Mobile ICBMs on dent’s choices, and what are the consequences of those choices?
Presidential Decision-Making —
1. The president chooses to launch a retaliatory strike im-
mediately, fearing that the destruction of less than one-third of
The Nuclear Posture Review raises the concern that silo-
the U.S. nuclear force is imminent. Risk: Faulty warning indi-
based ICBMs constrain presidential decision-making timelines
cations caused the president to initiate a nuclear strike when it
in such a way as to increase the likelihood of miscalculation or
was not warranted. Reward: The president is able to launch the
mistake.20 Upon initial warning of an attack on the United
entire U.S. nuclear arsenal rather than only two-thirds of it, thus
States, the president must make the decision to use the silo-
increasing the damage sustained by the adversary.
based ICBMs within a very short time frame in order to launch
them before they are destroyed on the ground by the adversary’s 2. The president does not launch an immediate retaliatory
incoming attack. According to this line of thinking, the lack of strike, choosing instead to absorb a possible impact, allowing
survivability of silo-based ICBMs forces the president into the time to ensure the warning indications were accurate and the
untenable position of having to either accept destruction of the nation is actually under attack. Risk: The president loses the
ICBM force or launch the ICBMs in a retaliatory attack with U.S. ICBM force (at the favorable exchange rate of 882 adver-
imperfect information. The posited risk in this situation is that sary weapons for 420 U.S. weapons).21 Reward: The president
the president will launch a retaliatory attack based on false eliminates the possibility that the warning indications were
warning indications, or that a complete loss of warning capabil- faulty and does not risk initiating a nuclear exchange.
ity may precipitate an attack. There are an infinite number of

June 2015 3 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
Conclusion: Given the costs and benefits of the two courses clear posture of the United States, a total of eight SSBNs are on
of action available, the president can afford to absorb the attack patrol at any one time.24 They constitute the entirety of the U.S.
and make a deliberate decision to retaliate against the adversary survivable retaliatory capability, loaded with 713 warheads on
without the pressure suggested by the Nuclear Posture Review 160 missiles. The remaining nuclear U.S. forces are vulnerable
and other sources. If ICBMs are a “use or lose” weapon, then to a first strike, including 60 bombers, the remaining 4 SSBNs
losing them is an acceptable choice as long as U.S. nuclear forc- (a total of 357 warheads) and 420 ICBMs (420 warheads).25 In
es are generated and survivability of the other two legs of the fact, the president also becomes a “use or lose” component of
triad is maximized, in which case adequate retaliatory forces the command and control system, and the impending decapita-
will be available. But what if U.S. forces have not been generat- tion of the U.S. government imposes its own sense of urgency
ed and their survivability is in question? on the decision-making process. The in-port SSBNs and the
bomber force impose no pressure on presidential decision-
Scenario 2: Unprovoked Nuclear Attack Without Warning making because there is no option to use them; in this scenario,
they are not “use or lose” weapons, but rather merely “lose”
In this scenario, the United States is caught completely by
weapons. In a “bolt out of the blue” situation, the silo-based
surprise, with no intelligence or other warning that an attack is
ICBM force simply gives the president another retaliatory op-
imminent. U.S. nuclear forces are in a normal posture; bombers
tion in addition to SSBNs on patrol.
are not dispersed, and one-third of the SSBN force is in port and
unprotected.22 The silo-based ICBM force is at its normal state
of readiness, prepared to promptly respond to presidential direc- — Nuclear Posture Review Rationale:
tion. The president is not in a survivable location, and the Unit-
ed States has not implemented its plans to ensure that command
An Assessment —
and control of nuclear forces can be maintained in a nuclear
The Nuclear Posture Review asks the Department of De-
environment. While in this posture, the president receives noti-
fense to consider alternate basing modes for ICBMs in order to
fication from the U.S. early warning system that an attack on
reduce the pressure on the president to launch on warning and
the United States has been initiated, and nuclear detonation in
thus reduce the likelihood of a miscalculation.26 In light of the
the continental United States will occur within minutes. What
two scenarios examined above, what benefits does the fielding
are the president’s choices, and what are the consequences of
of a mobile ICBM bring to presidential decision-making time-
those choices?
lines? In the first scenario, it is clear that the rational choice is
1. The president chooses to launch a retaliatory strike im- to absorb the attack. A mobile ICBM force would likely be dis-
mediately, fearing that the destruction of half of the U.S. nucle- persed and relatively survivable in such a scenario, and there is
ar force is imminent. Risk: Faulty warning indications caused no reason to launch on warning. A dispersed mobile ICBM
the president to initiate a nuclear strike when it was not warrant- force does not change the decision the president will make to
ed. Reward: The president is able to launch 73% of the U.S. absorb the attack, but merely the number of weapons available
nuclear arsenal on patrol (8 SSBNs with 713 warheads), plus for a retaliatory response (presumably all 1,550 warheads ver-
420 ICBMs (420 warheads), instead of less than 50% of it (8 sus 1,130). In the second scenario, the mobile ICBMs are un-
SSBNs on patrol), thus increasing the damage sustained by the likely to be dispersed, and will be caught in garrison. The lack
adversary. of survivability of mobile ICBMs in garrison poses the same
“use or lose” quandary these weapons were acquired to avoid—
2. The president chooses not to launch an immediate retali-
they offer no benefit whatsoever, as shown in Table 2 below.
atory strike, choosing instead to absorb a possible impact, thus
allowing time to ensure the warning indications were accurate Table 2: New START Nuclear Force Structure with Garrison-Based
and the nation is actually under attack. Risk: the president los- Mobile ICBM
es the U.S. ICBM force (at the favorable exchange rate of 882
adversary weapons for 420 U.S. weapons), the SSBNs in port (4 Alert Alert
Delivery Total
of the 12 in the arsenal), and the entire nuclear bomber force.23 System vehicles warheads
weapons weapons
(day-to-day) (generated)
Additionally, neither the president nor the presidential succes-
sors survive the attack. Finally, the nuclear command and con- SSBN 240 1,070 713 1,070
trol system is largely destroyed, having been caught in an un-
survivable state. Reward: The president eliminates the possibil-
ity that the warning indications were faulty and does not risk ICBM 420 420 0 420
initiating a nuclear exchange.
Conclusion: In a “bolt out of the blue” scenario, the presi- Bombers 60 60 0 60
dent has no good options. The choices are either to risk launch-
ing an attack based on faulty warning indications, or to risk Total 720 1,550 713 1,550
personal survival, retaliatory capability, and the destruction of
half of the nuclear arsenal in order to allow time to ensure the Adapted from Arms Control Association, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces Under New
warning indications are accurate. The “use or lose” nature of the START,” Arms Control Today, July 2013. Note: New START counts each bomber as
silo-based ICBM force certainly contributes to this dilemma, one warhead, though bombers are capable of carrying more.

but it is not the only source of quandary. In the day-to-day nu-

June 2015 4 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
Only mobile ICBMs that are dispersed at all times offer based ICBMs in order to acquire a less stabilizing system that
increased survivability in this scenario.27 Assuming the United provides unneeded additional retaliatory capability is ill ad-
States fields a mobile ICBM that is dispersed and moving con- vised.
tinuously, the president can choose to absorb a “bolt out of the
blue” attack, taking comfort in the fact that there are now 1,133
survivable weapons available instead of only the 713 warheads — Conditions Favoring a Mobile ICBM Force —
from the SSBNs on patrol, as shown in Table 3 below.
With an understanding of the role mobile ICBMs play in the
Table 3: New START Nuclear Force Structure with Constantly Dispersed nuclear force structures of other nations, it is essential to define
Mobile ICBM the circumstances that would favor the fielding of a U.S. mobile
ICBM system. In the discussion below, it is assumed that the
Alert Alert United States maintains its commitment to fielding three legs of
Delivery Total
System weapons weapons
vehicles warheads
(day-to-day) (generated) the current nuclear triad.
1. If the survivability of the U.S. SSBN fleet is called into
SSBN 240 1,070 713 1,070 question, a mobile ICBM system could be a viable, survivable
alternative. As previously discussed, survivability is a quality
ICBM 420 420 420 420 vital to the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear triad. The United
States currently relies on the survivability of the SSBN leg of
the triad at sea for its entire retaliatory capability on a day-to-
Bombers 60 60 0 60
day basis. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review raises no concerns
about emerging threats to SSBN survivability, stating that
Total 720 1,550 1,133 1,550 “today, there appears to be no viable near or mid-term threats to
the survivability of U.S. SSBNs,” while admitting that such
Adapted from Arms Control Association, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces Under New threats could emerge over the long term.32 Presumably, an
START,” Arms Control Today, July 2013. Note: New START counts each bomber as emerging long-term threat would afford the United States ample
one warhead, though bombers are capable of carrying more.
opportunity to develop and acquire survivable nuclear force
structure alternatives such as a mobile ICBM.
However, the mobile ICBM force does not protect the presi-
dent and vice president from the decapitating attack on leader- 2. If U.S. silo-based ICBMs are threatened by an adver-
ship that will inevitably accompany a surprise attack by a peer, sary’s conventional capability, a mobile ICBM could be a rea-
and does nothing to ensure the ability of the nation’s leaders to sonable addition to nuclear force structure. U.S. conventional
direct a retaliatory attack. In other words, the president remains superiority and emerging capability is a motivation for other
a “use or lose” component constraining decision-making time- nations to field mobile ICBMs. Their rationale is clear: the fact
lines, despite the increased survivability of a mobile ICBM ver- that the United States can destroy an adversary’s nuclear forces
sus a silo-based ICBM.28 without crossing the nuclear threshold or expending any of its
A constantly dispersed mobile ICBM force thus provides own nuclear weapons is a frightening prospect. To counter this
the most pronounced benefit to decision-making timelines in a threat, a mobile ICBM force is preferable to a static, vulnerable
surprise attack scenario. But should the United States make silo-based force. The complicated nature of hunting down and
nuclear force structure decisions for the future based on this destroying mobile missiles was clearly demonstrated during the
benefit? The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review offers some insight: first Gulf War, when the United States devoted hundreds of
“First and foremost, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are aircraft sorties to finding Iraqi SCUD missile launchers in un-
gone. Russia is not an enemy, and is increasingly a partner in challenging terrain, without any discernible success.33 It re-
confronting proliferation and other emerging threats.”29 The mains true that mobile missile launchers are excruciatingly dif-
2010 Nuclear Posture Review goes on to say that “while we ficult to find, fix, target, and destroy, and countries with mobile
must maintain stable deterrence with major nuclear powers, the ICBM forces use this fact to their advantage. Russia has gone so
likelihood of major nuclear war has declined significantly; thus far as to admit that they are considering fielding a rail-mobile
far fewer nuclear weapons are needed to meet our traditional ICBM system based on the threat to Russian silo-based ICBMs
deterrence and reassurance goals.”30 If the only country with a posed by the U.S. Prompt Global Strike conventionally armed
nuclear arsenal capable of launching a first strike against the ballistic missile.34 The U.S. silo-based ICBM force faces no
United States without warning is no longer an enemy, and the comparable conventional threat in the foreseeable future; how-
likelihood of major nuclear war has in fact declined significant- ever, a change to this threat assessment could justify a shift
ly, then the rationale for acquiring a mobile ICBM that is most from silo-based to mobile ICBMs.
effective in a surprise, all-out nuclear attack from Russia corre-
3. If the United States adopts a countervalue or minimum
spondingly diminishes. The SSBN force is heralded as the in-
credible deterrence nuclear strategy, the survivability of a mo-
dispensable leg of the nuclear triad due to its survivability, but
bile ICBM force would better meet the need for a secure second
the only situation where survivability is in question is dismissed
strike than would a silo-based force. Silo-based ICBMs are a
as “much diminished.”31 Admittedly, recent developments in
first strike or immediate retaliatory strike weapon, best suited to
the Ukraine have since tarnished the relationship between Rus-
striking an adversary’s military forces before they can be em-
sia and the West, but sacrificing the stability offered by silo-

June 2015 5 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
ployed against the United States. As previously discussed, a — Conclusion —
strategy of minimum credible deterrence adopts a “no first use”
policy and seeks to maintain a secure retaliatory capability, Current international threat conditions do not support the
largely by targeting population centers. As the United States has fielding of a U.S. mobile ICBM force. The nuclear triad as it
not employed a countervalue strategy (targeting cities rather exists today provides the appropriate mix of survivability, flexi-
than military forces) since the Kennedy Administration, it bility, and responsiveness necessary to support a counterforce
seems unlikely that U.S. adoption of a minimum credible deter- strategy and to present a full range of options to the president in
rence approach is imminent.35 Further deep cuts in the U.S. ar- the most likely postulated scenarios. The pressure exerted by
senal (whether unilateral or a result of arms control agreements) the “use or lose” nature of silo-based ICBMs in a massive sur-
could force the United States to consider such a strategy. The prise nuclear attack is not unique to that leg of the triad; the
fewer operationally deployed warheads available to nuclear war president and the nuclear command and control system are also
planners, the less likely it is that they will be able to hold an unlikely to survive such an attack. The 2010 Nuclear Posture
adversary’s nuclear forces at risk. If the United States has no Review thus overestimates the impact of silo-based ICBMs on
hope of destroying these enemy nuclear forces with a hypotheti- presidential decision-making in a time-constrained environment
cally smaller arsenal, an alternative deterrence strategy empha- by giving too much credence to the likelihood of a surprise at-
sizing retaliation against population centers must be considered. tack on a massive scale, and by failing to appreciate the vulner-
Should the intent of the Global Zero Initiative be incrementally ability of other elements of the nation’s nuclear command and
realized over a long period of time, the fielding of a U.S. mobile control system. The risk of losing silo-based ICBMs in such a
ICBM force (with its assured second strike capability) could scenario is more than offset by the stability offered by the
become a reality.36 “price to attack” of such weapons, and by the role they play in
4. If the international arms control regime fails and an arms altering an adversary’s decision-making process prior to initiat-
race reignites, the fielding of a mobile ICBM force could be to ing an attack.
the advantage of the United States. An unbridled arms race Certain factors, though not currently compelling, could mo-
would negate the stability offered by the “price to attack” silo- tivate the United States to more carefully consider the acquisi-
based ICBMs, and a mobile ICBM force would offer additional tion of a mobile ICBM force. If the survivability of SSBNs
survivability for the land-based leg of the nuclear triad. With an were called into question due to a technological breakthrough in
unconstrained arsenal, the vulnerability of the silo-based ICBM anti-submarine warfare, mobile ICBMs would offer an im-
forces could provide incentive for a first strike from a peer nu- portant redundant hedge for an assured second strike. If the U.S.
clear power, and the second strike capability of the SSBN force silo-based ICBM force were threatened by an unforeseen con-
and a mobile ICBM force could prove to be a decisive deterrent. ventional threat (such as an advanced stealth bomber or a highly
It is unlikely that the entire arms control relationship built up accurate conventional ballistic missile with sophisticated coun-
over the years with Russia will collapse in the foreseeable fu- termeasures), a mobile ICBM would reduce the risk that a non-
ture, but the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. The nuclear attack could be used to degrade the nuclear deterrent. If
United States recently accused Russia of violating the terms of the United States adopts a countervalue strategy such as mini-
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing mum credible deterrence, the survivability of a mobile ICBM
a ground-launched cruise missile. Among the range of respons- would better support the strategy’s reliance on retaliation by a
es to this violation being considered by the United States is the survivable weapon system. Finally, if an arms race reignites
fielding of a ground-launched cruise missile in Europe. Brian between the United States and Russia, the stability offered by
McKeon, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, stated U.S. silo-based forces may be outweighed by the incentive to
that the options under consideration ranged from “reactive de- attack these vulnerable weapons with a first strike. In this situa-
fense, to counterforce, to counter value defense measures.”37 tion, a constantly dispersed mobile ICBM force offers greater
These statements are likely mere posturing, but they do indicate survivability and increases stability.
that the long-term sustainment of arms control agreements re- A note of caution must accompany these caveats, precon-
quires two partners, each willing to live up to their end of the ditions, and assumptions. Mobile ICBMs present their own
bargain. U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty technological, doctrinal, and operational challenges, and the
in 2002 is a prime example of a nation terminating a treaty United States has never fielded a true mobile ICBM system.
when it no longer serves its national interest.38 If Russia were to Such a system cannot be designed, tested, acquired, and imple-
make the same calculation with regard to its current nuclear mented overnight, and the United States would be wise to regu-
arms control agreements, and unconstrained weapons buildups larly reassess its need for such a system. The conditions that
became the norm, a U.S. mobile ICBM force could offer a sur- would shift the calculus in favor of a mobile ICBM can change
vivable system to serve as a hedge against failure of the SSBN quickly, but the process of developing a mobile force takes
force. much more time. The strategic environment rarely favors the
unprepared.

June 2015 6 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
Summary of Major Studies to Define a Survivable Basing Concept for
ICBMs,” December 1980, 65.
15. Department of State, “The New START Treaty,” 22 October 2013,
accessed 21 November 2014, http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/215726.htm.
— NOTES — 16. Kingston Reif, Travis Sharp, and Kirk Bansak, “Pruning the Nuclear
Triad? The Pros and Cons of Submarines, Bombers, and Missiles,” The
1. The Center for Arms Control and Proliferation, “Quote of the Day: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 16 May 2013, accessed 4
The Triad (Specifically ICBMs) Makes Sense (For Now) Edition,” ac- December 2014, http://armscontrolcenter.org/pruning-the-nuclear-triad-
cessed 12 December 2014, http://nukesofhazardblog.com/quote-of-the-day- pros-and-cons-of-submarines-bombers-and-missiles/.
the-triad-specifically-icbms-makes-sense-for-now-edition/.
17. Baker Spring and Michaela Bendikova, “Time to Modernize and
2. Chuck Hagel, “Remarks by Secretary Hagel at the University of Ne- Revitalize the Nuclear Triad,” Backgrounder 2646 (27 January 2012): 5,
braska at Omaha,” accessed 4 December 2014, http://www.defense.gov/ The Heritage Foundation, accessed 21 January 2015, http://
transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5260. thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/bg2646.pdf.
3. Tom Z. Collina and Jacob Marx, “The Last Thing the US Needs are 18. The ratio of warheads expended to warheads destroyed takes into
Mobile Nuclear Missiles,” Defense One, 12 November 2014, accessed 28 account the survivability and hardness of current U.S. silos and the yield of
November 2014, http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/11/last-thing-us- notional attacking ICBMs (475 kilotons), and also assumes 90 percent
needs-are-mobile-nuclear-missiles/98828/?oref=d-skybox. reliability and 200 meter circular error probable for attacking ICBMs. Hob-
son, “The ICBM Basing Question,” 158, 183 (see n. 12).
4. Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington, DC: Department of
Defense, April 2010), 27, http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010 Nuclear 19. The price to attack garrison-based mobile ICBMs is roughly equiva-
Posture Review Report.pdf. lent to that of non-dispersed bombers. The price to attack dispersed land-
mobile ICBMs ranges from 2.6 to 8.0 depending on the characteristics of
5. Lauren Caston et. al., The Future of the U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic
the land-mobile system and the amount of warning received. Hobson, “The
Missile Force (RAND Corporation, 2014), 107, accessed 12 December
ICBM Basing Question,” 157-158 (see n. 12).
2014, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1210.html.
20. Nuclear Posture Review Report, 26 (see n. 4).
6. Nuclear Posture Review Report, 22, (see n. 4).
21. Hobson, “The ICBM Basing Question,” 158 (see n. 12).
7. Ibid., 23.
22. Richard Mies, “The SSBN in National Security,” Undersea Warfare
8. Andrew Feickert, Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of
2, no. 1 (Fall 1999), accessed 15 November 2014, http://www.navy.mil/
Foreign Countries, (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 5
navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_5/ntlsecurity.html.
March 2004), 2, 27-29, accessed 4 December 2014, http://www.au.af.mil/
au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30427.pdf. 23. Hobson, “The ICBM Basing Question,” 158, 183 (see n. 12).; Mies,
“The SSBN in National Security” (see n. 22).
9. Ankit Panda, “US Prompt Global Strike Missiles Prompt Russian
Rail-Mounted ICBMs,” The Diplomat, 19 Dec 2013, accessed 12 Decem- 24. Ibid.
ber 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/us-prompt-global-strike-missiles
-prompt-russian-rail-mounted-icbms. 25. The total number of warheads is based on treaty counting rules,
which only count bombers as a single system regardless of the number of
10.“China Reaffirms ‘No First Use’ Deterrent Policy,” Global Security warheads/bombs/cruise missiles loaded. See “Fact Sheet on U.S. Nuclear
Newswire, 31 March 2011, accessed 12 December 2014, http:// Force Structure under the New Start Treaty,” Department of Defense, ac-
www.nti.org/gsn/article/china-reaffirms-no-first-use-deterrent-policy; cessed 2 December 2014, http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-
“India Ready for Nuclear No First Use Agreements,” The Times of India, on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf.
22 October 2014, accessed 4 December 2014, http://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-ready-for-nuclear-no-first-use- 26. Nuclear Posture Review Report, 26 (see n. 4).
agreements/articleshow/44906401.cms; Hans M. Kristensen, Robert Nor- 27. Hobson, “The ICBM Basing Question,” 161 (see n. 12).
ris, and Ivan Oelrich, “From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New
Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons,” Feder- 28. Scott D. Sagan, Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National
ation of American Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Security (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 118.
Occasional Paper No. 7, April 2009, 21, accessed 4 December 2014, http://
www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/occasionalpaper7.pdf; Rakesh Sood, “Should 29. Nuclear Posture Review Report, 15 (see n. 4).
India Revise its Nuclear Doctrine?” Asia Pacific Leadership Network for 30. Ibid., 45.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the Centre for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Policy Brief No. 18, December 2014, 31. Ibid.
7,9, accessed 12 December 2014, http://www.a-pln.org/sites/default/files/ 32. Ibid, 22.
apln-analysis-docs/Policy Brief No 18 - Should India Revise its Nuclear
Doctrine.pdf. 33. William Rosenau, Special Operations Forces and Elusive Enemy
Ground Targets: Lessons from Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War (RAND
11. Ibid., 21. Corporation, 2001), 33, accessed 12 December 2014, https://
12. Art Hobson, “The ICBM Basing Question,” Science and Global www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1408/
Security 2 (1991): 158. MR1408.ch3.pdf.

13. Lauren Caston et al., The Future, 107 (see n. 5). 34. Panda, “US Prompt Global Strike” (see n. 9).

14. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 35. Sagan, Moving Targets, 32 (see n. 28).
Engineering (Strategic and Space Systems) “ICBM Basing Options: A

June 2015 7 CUWS Trinity Site Papers

 cuws.au.af.mil
36. Dr. Jacques Attali et al., “Global Zero Action Plan,” Global Zero
(February 2010): 3, accessed 4 December 2014, http://www.globalzero.org/
files/gzap_6.0.pdf.
37. Bill Gertz, “Pentagon Considering Deployment of Nuclear Missiles in
Europe,” The Washington Free Beacon, 11 December 2014, accessed 12
December 2014, http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-
considering-deployment-of-nuclear-missiles-in-europe.
38. Terrence Neilan, “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty: Putin Calls Move
a Mistake,” The New York Times, 13 December 2001, accessed 12 Decem-
ber 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/13CND-
BUSH.html.

The mission of the U.S. Air Force Center for Unconven-

tional Weapons Studies is to develop Air Force, DoD, and
other USG leaders to advance the state of knowledge, policy,
and practices within strategic defense issues involving nucle-
ar, biological, and chemical weapons.

The Trinity Site Papers present key discussions, ideas, and

conclusions that are directly relevant to developing defense
policy and strategy relating to countering weapons of mass
destruction and developing the nuclear enterprise.
The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or
implied in this article are those of the author and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the Air University, Air Force, or
Department of Defense.

June 2015 8 CUWS Trinity Site Papers