Renuclearization eminent

Our Nuclear Arsenal, 2.0

Anyone who has been keeping a keen eye on military spending for the 2025 fiscal year could tell you— this year is different.

The Senate Armed Services Committee just voted to approve the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) in a vote of 22-3. This bill is not unlike any previously approved NDAA’s— it has bipartisan support, and approves a somewhat substantial but not out of the ordinary increase in military spending of 911.8 billion from 2024’s 841 billion. It has some added social welfare aspects that are in many ways progressive, such as the service member quality of life improvement passed in tandem. However, this act and all that is enclosed in it is just a small piece of a larger picture in military expansion of the US. One that is seemingly flying under the radar in the midst of the upcoming election. One that is spearheaded and backboned by aggressive nuclear capacity.

There are three “legs” of United States nuclear capacity, each one working to fortify the next. In the DOD conference held may of this year, manager of the Air Force Global Strike Command ICMB Policy Steven Young discusses this triad, stating that “the land-based weapons are one leg of that triad. Another leg is the air based weapons delivered by jet fighters and bombers. That’s what uses gravity bombs. And the third leg are missiles launched from submarines at sea.”

This three leg framework is crucial for understanding what the US military is currently doing with both nuclear expansion and re-nuclearization.

Like the three legs of the US nuclear arsenal, there are three key components of this shift in the United States military to look out for: the first is the United States Sentinel program, which is the largest single expenditure on a military program ever approved, and a land based modernization of nuclear capability. The second is the renuclearization of formerly denuclearized aircrafts. Along with this comes the Long Range Strike Bomber Program, a program that is working to develop a newer more powerful model of stealth bombers to replace all of the US’s nuclear aircraft arsenal. The third is the expansion of the Navy’s nuclear arsenal, and all of the developments with amphibious nuclear warefare.

Sentinel Program

In May of this year a press conference was held with several leaders in the DOD including a former principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and a manager of the Air Force Global Strike Command ICBM Policy.

The heart of this conference was of course, ICBMs, which have been playing a significant role in the US’s recent nuclear developments. Up until this program was greenlit, the United States’s nuclear arsenal consisted of somewhat “antiquated” land-based Minuteman III nuclear mussels. The Sentinel will be lighter, faster, and more up to par with modern nuclear warfare.

Model of what a deployed ICBM sentinel would look like

The per-unit cost of the US Sentinel Program is projected at 214 million, a massive financial uptick from the production costs of the minuteman. The entire project exceeds original cost projections by 37%, a margin that would not be acceptable in any other section of government expenditures. According to the the Association of Air Force Missileers, the entire project itself will “deploy 400 new missiles, update 450 silos, and modernize more than 600 facilities across almost 40,000 square miles of U.S. territory, which spans over six states, three operational wings, and a test location.”

Nuclearization of Aircrafts

While the Sentinel Program may seem like the most concerning aspect of this nuclear “upgrade”, there is something else slipping under the radar that is arguably more concerning. As part of an arms control Treaty with Russia (New START) signed in 2016, the United States agreed to convert 30 B-52H Stratofortress bombers to only drop conventional munitions. This was part of a deescalation targeting aircraft’s, which are of course a key party of any ICBM program. Both House and Senate Defense bills call for the restoration of nuclear capabilities to the B-52s, and this is not something that has been seriously considered by Congress since the New START arms treaty was ratified.

If this bill was passed, it would require the US Airforcde to reconvert all of the US B-52 bombers at the expiration of the New START treaty in 2026. This would be one of the most powerful expansions of the nuclear side of the military because these Stratofortresses play a key role in active combat. With current nuclear capabilities, many of the B-52s would be carrying air-launched cruise missiles (AGM-86B) nukes. These nukes are potent and flexible ballistic missiles that have far more destructive capability than anything that has ever been detonated during warfare. As for the rest of the B-52 fleet, the Air Force has refused to comment as to which direction the restoration of nuclear capabilities for those bombers will go.

Alongside renuclearization of US aircrafts, there is yet another aspect of the US military’s nuclear capability that is getting expanded substantly— our strategic/stealth bombers. The Northrop B-2 Spirit is arguably one of the most well known aircrafts the United States has ever developed. Even its silhouette has become an iconic symbol of overseas warfare and deployment of US munitions. Colloquially known as the Stealth Bomber, this silent killer is officially responsible for a combined 49 sorties and the deployment of over 1.5 million lbs of munitions. The United States recently began developing the B-21 Raider as a component of their Long Range Strike Bomber Program, something that has been floating around since 2014 but hasn’t actually been commenced until recently.

B-2 Spirit Pictured above

The B-21 Raider is intended to replace both the B-2 and the the B-1, and if development goes as planned, eventually our entire B-52 fleet will be replaced by B-21 Stealth Raiders. Not much is known about the capabilities of the B-21. All that we know is that this is a part of a 141 Billion dollar program and that it is intended to be a reconnaissance and nuclear powerhouse with a longer range than the B-2.

Amphibious and Aquatic Nuclear weapons

While this is arguably the least aggressive aspect of nuclear expansion, the fact that it too is also being modernized is indicative of a widespread nuclear expansion initiative across all branches of the US Military.

Amphibious nuclear weapons are very different from ICBMS and Long Range, as they are far slower to wield in active combat. Conversely, they can carry and deploy far more nuclear munitions than ICBMs and Aircrafts can due to their aquatic travel.

Missile deployed from a Submarine

The US military is also currently developing new Submarine-wielded nuclear weaponry, ranging from low yield warheads that are called “micro nukes”, to high yield weapons that have a detonation size 30 times that of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. The submarines carry about 20 missiles, so both of these nukes would be on the same submarine. Steven Young commented on this development, emphasizing the danger of amphibious nuclear warfare due to the nature of submarines. Because submarines are not aircrafts, nor do they have to travel intercontinentally, one submarine has “Seven times the destructive power of all of the bombs used in World War II”.

Implications

Congress approves a hefty and seemingly overdone military budget every year, and every year there is outcry from progressives and economists alike about the increase in spending. So what makes these expenditures and programs different? It is hard to differentiate a typical military budget splurge from one that is likely indicative of something more, but all three of these nuclear legs getting ramped up in such a rushed fashion is concerning.

The United States has not approved such aggressive modernization of any portion of their military in years, especially not nuclear. Ending de-escalation treaties, renuclearizing entire bomber fleets while simultaneously developing Stealth bombers to replace these entire bomber fleets, and expanding amphibious nuclear capabilities are deviations from the US military spending norms, and they are likely indicative of the increasing global tensions.