Homeland defense: Pentagon’s costly bet on next-gen nuclear mis…

Illustration of the Sentinel next-generation ICBM. Northrop Grumman

The Pentagon has announced a staggering 81 percent cost increase for the Sentinel program, the latest initiative to update the United States’ land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system.

Initial estimates of $78 billion have now ballooned to nearly $141 billion. Despite this dramatic surge, the Department of Defense (DoD) is proceeding with the program, citing national security concerns and a lack of viable alternatives.

The Sentinel program, led by Northrop Grumman, aims to replace the Minuteman III missiles that have been a core element of America’s nuclear deterrence strategy for over six decades. This modernization affects one leg of the US nuclear triad, which also includes submarine-launched missiles and strategic bombers.

Minuteman III missiles have formed the backbone of the US ground-based nuclear deterrent since their deployment in the early 1970s. The Sentinel program represents the first significant upgrade to this system in more than 60 years, reflecting the strategic necessity of maintaining a credible deterrent against modernizing nuclear arsenals in both China and Russia.

Several factors have contributed to the Sentinel program’s cost overrun, most notably the complexities associated with modernizing the command and launch infrastructure.

The scope of underground infrastructure upgrades, including the critical Hicks cable network for secure communications, was not adequately factored into initial estimates.

The magnitude of the cost increase triggered a Nunn-McCurdy breach, a statutory mechanism requiring a thorough review when program costs exceed the baseline by 25 percent or more.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante conducted this review and concluded that despite financial challenges, the program should continue. LaPlante stated that alternative solutions, such as extending the life of Minuteman III or pursuing mobile ICBM options, were either not cost-effective or failed to meet operational requirements.

The decision to proceed with the Sentinel program, despite its high costs, is rooted in strategic imperatives. The rapid expansion and modernization of nuclear forces by China and Russia, including the development of new missile systems and construction of new silos, pose increasing threats.

In this context, the Sentinel program is viewed not merely as a replacement but as a strategic necessity, intended to provide increased accuracy, reliability, and survivability.

However, the program’s substantial cost increase has sparked controversy among policymakers, analysts, and lawmakers.

Critics argue that these funds could be better utilized for other pressing needs, such as healthcare, education, or conventional military capabilities. They question whether the scale of investment is justified given the US government’s fiscal constraints.

Proponents counter that the cost of not modernizing could be far greater.

They argue that a credible nuclear deterrent is fundamental to national security and global stability.

The Sentinel program has faced significant legislative scrutiny. Progressive lawmakers, like Representative John Garamendi of California, have called for a full review of alternatives, suggesting that extending the life of the Minuteman III system could be a less expensive option.

In contrast, supporters like Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska argue that land-based ICBMs are crucial for deterrence due to their location in the American heartland.

“Land-based ICBMs, by their location in our heartland, are also unlikely to be targeted by enemy attack,” Fischer said in a recent Newsweek op-ed.

However, critics like Joseph Cirincione, former president of the Ploughshares Fund, contend that this very vulnerability makes ICBMs a liability rather than an asset.

“If we were to use the ICBMs, it would be the end of human civilization, even if not a single warhead was fired back at the United States,” says Cirincione.

“You don’t need the ICBM silos,” said Tara Drozdenko, director of global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Our submarine-based missiles are quite accurate. They’re basically impossible to find, and so they don’t have the vulnerability as our fixed-in-one-spot silos have.”

However, the DoD review process found no alternative to meet cost, performance, and schedule standards.

The other consideration in this selection was the need to continue the current industrial base and technological skills for the US defense industrial sector. This work is integral to Northrop Grumman and its subcontractors in the defense industry; it provides thousands of jobs while sustaining essential skills.

More than that, the decision to continue the Sentinel program reflects a broader commitment to preserving the integrity of the nuclear triad.

Each leg of the triad provides unique capabilities and strategic advantages. If SLBMs provide survivability and strategic bombers, they add flexibility. ICBMs become vital for prompt responsiveness and dispersal across a great area, significantly complicating any potential adversary’s attack plans.