A millennial’s view: ICBMs are ridiculous

By Noah C. Mayhew | July 8, 2021

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launched during a test An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launched during a test at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on February 5, 2020. Credit: US Air Force photo by Senior Airman Clayton Wear

The international community is increasingly prioritizing the voices of young experts in nuclear nonproliferation and related issues. This generation—my generation—is facing the simultaneous pressure to pursue higher education to be successful and, at least in the United States, the burden of taking on gargantuan amounts of student debt. As someone who has invested more than $100,000 in educating myself about topics as salient as nuclear nonproliferation, US-Russian arms control, and international diplomacy, I find it absolutely incomprehensible why the United States puts the kind of money it does into military spending ($778 billion in 2020)—and more specifically into the obscene budget for the nuclear modernization project, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion over 30 years.

These figures lead me, and I suspect many other young American nuclear policy experts, to question why my government is spending this level of money to modernize a leg of the US nuclear triad—namely intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—that not only is outrageously expensive but also inherently destabilizing and unnecessary for deterrence.

Former US Defense Secretary William Perry and Ploughshares Fund Policy Director Tom Z. Collina said it in their 2020 book, The Button. Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said it in a 2021 edition of Arms Control Today. Others have said it and have been saying it for years.

ICBMs are ridiculous.

Let me explain. None of these experts have written these words verbatim, but they have outlined in frightening and depressing fashion why ICBMs should be phased out. There are three main reasons for this: the particular danger ICBMs pose, their redundancy in nuclear deterrence, and their ludicrous cost.

They are the most dangerous leg of the nuclear triad. They are the epitome of use-it-or-lose-it weapons in a crisis. As Perry and Collina point out, Russia knows exactly where all the United States’ ICBMs are and could (but certainly wouldn’t) attack them at any time in a first-strike scenario. In response to a warning of an incoming attack, true or mistaken, the US could either launch its ICBMs so that they are not destroyed should the attack be genuine, or wait to ensure that the attack is real, thus guaranteeing that a majority of American ICBMs would be destroyed. There is no reason to continue with a US nuclear strategy that creates this much risk, especially given the plethora of false alarms of incoming attacks, which are a matter of public record. Put simply, ICBMs are too dangerous.

Proponents of ICBMs say we need to retain them as a “sponge” that, in a first-strike, full-war scenario, would require an attacker to expend much of its nuclear forces to take out US ICBMs. But the US can respond to a nuclear attack with or without ICBMs. As Kimball and others point out, just one US nuclear-armed submarine, which carries on the order of 160 thermonuclear warheads with yields far greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be enough to devastate an entire country in a second strike. Nuclear-armed submarines are, by design, nearly impossible for other countries to track. If the goal is retaining a second-strike capability to ensure a credible deterrent, ICBMs are redundant.

RELATED:
RELATED: Latest idea for saving the Great Barrier Reef? Dump crushed rocks on it

If one accepts the previous two arguments—that ICBMs are needlessly dangerous and, in fact, redundant—it becomes even harder to understand why the United States spends so much money on them. The 2021 budget for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, the planned replacement for today’s ICBMs, is $1.5 billion. That is for just one year. The Biden Administration’s ask for this program in 2022 is $2.6 billion.

Nuclear policy discourse (correctly) includes increasing input from next-generation or emerging experts—pick your moniker. Here are just a few reasons, from a young expert’s perspective, why President Biden should, at the very least, freeze the budget for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, as Kimball suggests for a first step, noting that even just freezing this budget at 2021 levels would save $1 billion. Or better yet, phase out ICBMs altogether, as Perry and Collina suggest. Either of these steps could provide significant cost savings.

Because of the way the federal budget is built, with separate categories for defense and non-defense spending, any immediate cost savings from an ICBM budget freeze would be redirected to other projects within the Defense Department and could not be used for non-military projects. Still, it’s a worthwhile thought experiment to consider how future budget requests could phase out ICBMs while increasing funding for other projects by an equivalent amount. The financial strains in student loan debt, healthcare costs, climate change mitigation, and even budgetary issues in nuclear governance demonstrate that there are many better uses for that money.

Student debt. This is the raison d’etre for my rant. Borrowers in the United States already owe nearly $1.6 trillion for educational loans. It is incomprehensible to me and to many other young experts why the country that spends more than any other nation on defense cannot make education affordable for its youth. The federal government, which owns more than 90 percent of US student loan debt, estimates that approximately one third of this debt will never be repaid. What a difference it would make in the lives of so many young experts, both in the nuclear field and elsewhere, if money saved on missiles and missile modernization could be used to bolster the young generation of American leaders, rather than to weigh it down.

Healthcare. A similar argument applies to healthcare. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health insurance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this fact became much more salient, as hospitals were overwhelmed and the entire healthcare system came under immense pressure. It was a revelation to me, when I moved to Austria, that a trip to the emergency room there wouldn’t drown me in bills I couldn’t pay. The first time I went to pick up medication and wasn’t handed a bill, the pharmacist looked at me and said, “Yes, no bill—in this country we believe healthcare is a human right.” Imagine how far the money from the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program could go toward easing strains on the American healthcare system.

RELATED:
RELATED: How to trash confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine: Brexit edition

Climate change. It’s not just Greta Thunberg who’s unhappy with the global response to climate change—it’s at least 86 percent of young Americans, and most of us understand that human activities are to blame. To mitigate the effects of climate change, there has to be more money invested in carbon-friendly energy. It doesn’t have to be nuclear energy (although Russian colleagues and I argued in 2020 that nuclear is among the safer energy sources). Funds freed up from the ICBM modernization program could go to research and development for advanced reactor designs; and construction of more wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric stations.

Nuclear safeguards. The international community relies on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that nuclear technology remains in peaceful uses. The IAEA applied nuclear safeguards in 183 countries in 2020, and it did so to the tune of 148.7 million euros (approximately $177 million). This budget includes verification activities under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal. The number of facilities and other locations required to be under safeguards is growing, while the IAEA continues to work with a zero-real-growth budget (increasing only enough to account for inflation). The United States is already the IAEA’s largest funder, but the money spent on ICBMs and their modernization would be better spent on support to the IAEA, including Member State Support Programs that augment safeguards activities.

These are just a few items that the United States government could prioritize over ICBMs. Other options include funding verification research, through initiatives like the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification, so that when further reductions in nuclear arms become possible, we have the technology to support that. The United States could also contribute more to the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including funding to make up for progress lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Young experts in this field are not naïve. We are fully aware that, as long as they exist, nuclear weapons will continue to require spending on maintenance to ensure safety and reliability, regardless of whether these weapons are in silos, on submarines, or in the air. However, it does not make sense, financial or otherwise, to invest enormous sums of money in modernizing the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad when it is not needed for national security.

President Biden has an opportunity here. The hole in arms control left by the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is aching to be filled. The slow rot of the Open Skies Treaty makes this hole even deeper. Why not fill it by unilaterally phasing out an entire class of nuclear weapons? Removing the ICBMs from the US nuclear fleet, even pledging to do so, would provide a sorely needed confidence-building measure in the US-Russia relationship.

My generation is tired of seeing billions directed to dangerous, destabilizing weapons rather than to investments in our future. It’s time for ICBMs to go.


As the coronavirus crisis shows, we need science now more than ever.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Share: 

Get alerts about this thread
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Lyons
Richard Lyons
24 days ago

Sadly, it would seem safe to assume that profit is the driver here. It makes no difference to those who supply, maintain and, in this proposed situation, who carries out the upgrade programme what the end use of the ICBMs will be. They can end up rotting underground as long as they first generate revenue. As for student debt, bear in mind the banks make no money if one doesn’t owe them money in the first place Using the ICBM upgrade programme money to write down student debt would deny both the weapons manufacturing industry and the banks a lot… Read more »

Ryan
Ryan
24 days ago

The student loan issue is a big one, but canceling the debt is not an optimal policy for 2 reasons: it’s likely regressive and does nothing to force colleges & universities to have some skin in the game. The up-and-coming experts in areas like “nuclear nonprolifereation, US-Russian arms control, and international diplomacy” tend to come from more affluent backgrounds and have higher income potential than the non-college educated workers in the same age cohort. So, canceling student debt is likely to exacerbate the income inequality problem in this country. Meanwhile, colleges & universities are charging students with ever-higher tuition prices… Read more »

Thomas Mazowiesky
Thomas Mazowiesky
24 days ago

So if these weapons are so ridiculous, why are the Chinese drilling lots of holes for missile silos?

Donna Nist
Donna Nist
24 days ago

Thank you for this wonderful article.

Lorna Salzman
24 days ago

This quite practical approach should be applied to civilian nuclear power as well. When scientists seriously propose new fangled reactors that they claim are perfectly safe, they ignore the exorbitant costs of reactors, in the $13 billion range. Imagine how many wind turbines or photovoltaic cells or solar collectors you could manufacture and install for that amount of money! Someone needs to steer these
atomic-fixated scientists onto a different path, difficult as it maybe for nuclear professionals to admit that their nuclear toys are, as Amory Lovins said, a “future technology whose time has passed”.

Dan Senour
Dan Senour
24 days ago

One could easily make parallel arguments for military jets that are pretty useless since the Korean war or perhaps Vietnam war. At least drones are much cheaper.
But apparently, cyber threats are much more of a threat to national security than big weapon invasion.

Dragon
Dragon
24 days ago

So, you are asking the USA to unilaterally abandon the ICBM’s; why doesn’t your rant include Russia and China? If you believe the Russian and Chinese governments would abandon their ICBM programs then you need to get a refund from the schools you attended where you ran up that $100,000 in debt. You also neglected to mention that tax rates in Europe can be higher than the US so that’s how medical and educational largess is covered. In fact, how did you end up $100,000 in debt from school? I worked 3 to 4 part time jobs, earned scholarships and… Read more »

William K
William K
24 days ago

Interesting points.
While you are arranging to get your student debt paid off, I think reparations are in order for my two daughters who worked themselves crazy to pay for their college degrees at major universities. Fair is fair.
And why does a university education cost so much? As Universities attack Capitalism, they seem to have mastered it. For their own evil greed.

Willy
Willy
24 days ago

These ICBMs had kept the peace and deterred a nuclear war for more than six decades. What’s more can we ask for.

Last edited 24 days ago by Willy
Malcolm Davis
24 days ago

I completely understand your frustration. But if we cancel GBSD and scrap Minuteman – go to a Dyad, lets look at how credible that deterrent is, not just now, but for decades into the future. Yes, US boomers are pretty much undetectable now, but think about how advances in AI, Quantum tech, and autonomous systems might make the ocean less opaque in the future. China is already testing satellite based LIDAR to detect submarines from orbit to a depth of 500 feet – noting that the typical launch depth for a US SSBN is about 150 metres. Autonomous UUVs are… Read more »

Mark Gubrud
23 days ago
Reply to  Malcolm Davis

I think you are moderately correct. Too many people are too confident about SSBN survivability, and nobody should really be at all confident about bomber penetration at least before major damage is done to air defenses. But I can only endorse retention of MM3 and proportional reductions in all nuclear weapons as we move toward abolition. All of this stuff collectively poses the greatest, most immediate threat to civilization. Coupla quibbles: quantum sensors may prove useful in ASW but quantum computing will have no use generally for processing classical data (which is what sensors including quantum sensors produce). Autonomous systems… Read more »

jfc
jfc
24 days ago

You do not speak for me, nor for the hundreds of other millennials who have served in the nuclear enterprise since our generation became old enough.

Declaring yourself a “young expert” on a subject that you’ve studied for three entire years at the unclassified level is… somewhat conceited, to put it mildly.

Last edited 24 days ago by jfc
Keith
Keith
23 days ago

ICBM’s are far more secure than missiles on subs or the B2 flying them. They require a massive strike to destroy, a world killer strike. No one wants that and that is their beauty. Subs and planes do not have that security. They can be knocked out without pulling the end the world card. ICBM’s are worth more than their weight in gold when it comes to security from nuclear attack. They are far more important than paying your tuition.