Opening Statement by Ranking Member Reed at SASC Hearing on U.S. Strategic Command
Thank you, Senator Inhofe. General Hyten, thank you for your service to our country and for testifying on the posture of the United States Strategic Command as we prepare for the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. I would like to hear from you about a number of topics based on your office call with me last week.
First and foremost is the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review. It adopts many of the same premises as the 2010 Posture Review – that we will not use nuclear weapons against nations in good standing with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but we always reserve the right in cases of extreme circumstance to use nuclear weapons. It affirms the importance of nonproliferation but places an emphasis on the changed threat conditions that exist today verses 2010. It reaffirms the importance of the 2010 review on modernizing the triad of delivery platforms and weapons and their Nuclear Command, Control and Communication or NC3 systems. But, it also proposes two supplemental systems, a low yield submarine launched ballistic missile and a sea based cruise missile, which was dropped in the 2010 Posture Review because it was not being deployed and maintained.
While I agree with much of the NPR, I have concerns about the low-yield submarine launched warhead. It is my understanding that this system is in response to Russia’s military doctrine of using a small yield nuclear weapon as a means to “escalate to deescalate” or “escalate to win” a conventional conflict.
The Russian doctrine of ‘escalate-to-deescalate” could easily spin out of control if our response to their low yield weapon is to use a similar one; which could escalate into an exchange of larger weapons. We have to devote considerable effort to war “gaming” this problem and ensure that existing systems, both conventional and nuclear, cannot meet this doctrinal challenge of “escalate-to-deescalate."
In any case, such a proposal certainly opens up a debate of deeply held opinions. While this debate may be important to have, I worry that it may disrupt a bipartisan consensus that presently ensures the modernization of the triad and NC3 system. This process will take decades and I believe it should be our highest priority and sole focus.
Beyond the nuclear mission, General, you also have an increasingly important space mission. I realize much of this is classified but it is imperative that you communicate in an appropriate format what this budget request proposes and how it addresses the threats we face.
You are also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans and operations. I would like to hear your thoughts on the state of our homeland and regional systems – how we need to improve reliability and address advancing threats.
Your command is also responsible for spectrum operations and electronic warfare. I would like to know what your command has been advocating for to make this an integrated effort across the Department of Defense.
Strategic Command, as is its name implies, is about deterrence with near peer competitors. Today, deterrence is a seamless continuum between land, sea, air, electronic spectrum and space. You have many issues on your plate and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.