Video - Center for Strategic & International Studies
Debate: Modernization of Nuclear Missiles
The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) and Ploughshares Fund are pleased to invite you to the second in a debate series on a range of nuclear challenges and policy decisions the Trump administration will face in 2017. The debate series aims to provide a forum for in-depth exploration of arguments on both sides of key nuclear policy issues. Additional topics and dates will be confirmed soon.
Debate question:
Participants will be asked to address the following statement:
- Resolved – Current plans to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal are excessive, and the new ICBM and cruise missile should be cancelled or substantially curtailed.
As currently planned, the United States will modernize nearly every part of its nuclear arsenal, including a new Columbia class submarine, a ground-based strategic deterrent (GBSD) to replace the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a new stealth bomber (B-21), a long-range stand-off missile (LRSO), replacement warheads, upgraded command-and-control systems, and other improvements across the strategic triad. Proposals have received rare bipartisan support from Congress, and many of them have either started or are expected to receive formal authorization to begin soon. Some argue, however, that the United States could manage without the LRSO program or that the ICBM leg could safely be phased out at the end of its life cycle, producing important savings that can be applied to other defense priorities. In addition, some argue that these programs could further increase tensions with adversaries, destabilize the strategic nuclear balance or pose a heightened risk of inadvertent or accident nuclear use. Supporters of the modernization plan stress that it occupies a fairly small percentage of the total defense budget, that critical systems are reaching the end of their life span, and a stable and durable strategic deterrence posture depends on the balance, diversity, and flexibility the full triad provides.
To view full video, please click here.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
“Debate: Modernization of Nuclear Missiles.” Video, May 23, 2017, posted by “Center for Strategic & International Studies”.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
The 1st Nuclear Ban Draft is Out
Analysis & Opinions
- Defense One
Scuttle the Iran Nuke Deal? That Approach Didn’t Stop North Korea
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
Cutting Funding to the IAEA Is a Horrible Idea
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- Project Syndicate
If Trump Returns
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
- Belfer Center Fellow Peter Ajak Navigates Challenges from Lost Boy to South Sudanese Activist
Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) and Ploughshares Fund are pleased to invite you to the second in a debate series on a range of nuclear challenges and policy decisions the Trump administration will face in 2017. The debate series aims to provide a forum for in-depth exploration of arguments on both sides of key nuclear policy issues. Additional topics and dates will be confirmed soon.
Debate question:
Participants will be asked to address the following statement:
- Resolved – Current plans to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal are excessive, and the new ICBM and cruise missile should be cancelled or substantially curtailed.
As currently planned, the United States will modernize nearly every part of its nuclear arsenal, including a new Columbia class submarine, a ground-based strategic deterrent (GBSD) to replace the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a new stealth bomber (B-21), a long-range stand-off missile (LRSO), replacement warheads, upgraded command-and-control systems, and other improvements across the strategic triad. Proposals have received rare bipartisan support from Congress, and many of them have either started or are expected to receive formal authorization to begin soon. Some argue, however, that the United States could manage without the LRSO program or that the ICBM leg could safely be phased out at the end of its life cycle, producing important savings that can be applied to other defense priorities. In addition, some argue that these programs could further increase tensions with adversaries, destabilize the strategic nuclear balance or pose a heightened risk of inadvertent or accident nuclear use. Supporters of the modernization plan stress that it occupies a fairly small percentage of the total defense budget, that critical systems are reaching the end of their life span, and a stable and durable strategic deterrence posture depends on the balance, diversity, and flexibility the full triad provides.
To view full video, please click here.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
The 1st Nuclear Ban Draft is Out
Analysis & Opinions - Defense One
Scuttle the Iran Nuke Deal? That Approach Didn’t Stop North Korea
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
Cutting Funding to the IAEA Is a Horrible Idea
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - Project Syndicate
If Trump Returns
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
-Belfer Center Fellow Peter Ajak Navigates Challenges from Lost Boy to South Sudanese Activist
Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It