Canceling “Expensive, Dangerous, Unnecessary”
Sentinel Would Save $100 Billion
Kyle Ann Sebastian / The Union of Concerned Scientists
WASHINGTON, DC (July 8, 2024) — As the Pentagon certified the continuation of the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile (ICBM) today, 716 scientists, including ten Nobel laureates and 23 members of the National Academies, are calling for the program to be cancelled.
In a letter to President Biden and Congress, scientists recommend retiring the land-based leg of the nuclear triad entirely, calling it “expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary.” [You can read the letter below — EAW]
“There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons,” said Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which organized the letter.
“These weapons — stored in silos across the Plains states — place a target on scommunities and increase the risk of nuclear war while offering no meaningful security benefits. The US could eliminate the land-based leg of the triad tomorrow and the US public would only be safer for it.”
The Pentagon review of the Sentinel came after the projected cost of the project rose 37%, to $131 billion, requiring a re-evaluation of the program and possible alternatives under the Nunn-McCurdy Act.
“It is unconscionable to continue to develop nuclear weapons, like the Sentinel Program,” said Dr. Barry Barish, recipient of the 2017 Nobel Prize in physics, member of the National Academy of Sciences and signatory to the letter. “The Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955 simply stated for us that ‘such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind.’ Today’s more advanced weapons only emphasize that profound statement.”
While the ballooning cost is reason enough to cancel the program, silo-based nuclear missiles also pose an unnecessary danger to the US public, according to the letter. A recent study found that an attack on US land-based missiles — which are intended to act as a “sponge” to attract and absorb incoming adversary missiles — would result in millions of deaths across the US due to radioactive fallout.
Because the locations of these missiles are well known, they are vulnerable to attack. The US military keeps these missiles on “hair-trigger” alert so they can be launched within minutes, increasing the risk of nuclear war due to false alarms, misunderstandings and miscalculations.
Improvements in other legs of the US nuclear triad have rendered the land-based leg of the triad redundant and unnecessary. Nuclear-armed submarines hidden at sea are as accurate as silo-based missiles, quick to respond and essentially invulnerable to attack. Previous UCS research found US land-based missiles to be superfluous and argued they could be eliminated without sacrificing US security.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III is recommending continued spending on the over-budget and behind-schedule Sentinel program. But President Biden and Congress should examine this evaluation with a critical eye, conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits and cancel the program, saving US taxpayers over $100 billion.
THE LETTER
Scientists Call for Canceling
New Land Based Nuclear Missiles
To President Biden and Congress:
As scientists and engineers, we are acutely aware of the grave risk of nuclear war. We are particularly concerned about the needless dangers created by the deployment of expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary land-based, intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Expensive because in January 2024, the cost of the new US ICBM program, Sentinel, rose 37 percent, to $131 billion for production alone. This represents a “critical breach” of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, mandating a formal re-evaluation of the program by the Pentagon, including an examination of reasonable alternatives. The Secretary of Defense must decide whether to go forward with the program or cancel it, then make that case to Congress.
Dangerous because silo-based missiles are vulnerable to a preemptive attack. As a result, the missiles are kept on “hair- trigger” alert so the president can launch them in less than five minutes, before they are destroyed. Past near misses, including false alarms, miscalculation, and misunderstanding, show how this high alert posture increases the risk of nuclear war, especially because the US president can order the launch of nuclear weapons without consulting anyone else.
Also dangerous because silo-based missiles, deployed in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, are intended to act as a “sponge” to attract and soak up incoming nuclear-armed missiles so that they cannot be used on other targets.
A recent study published in Scientific American indicated that several million people in the US would be expected to die from the radioactive fallout from such an attack. These deaths could be anywhere in the contiguous United States depending on the weather. In other words, rather than fields of silos harmlessly absorbing an attack, millions of people would die.
Unnecessary because the United States deploys an assured ability to retaliate against a nuclear attack without land-based missiles. Roughly 1,000 nuclear warheads are deployed on US submarines hidden at sea, essentially invulnerable to attack. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are as accurate as silo-based missiles, quick to respond, and provide more destructive capability than could ever be employed effectively.
Specifically, one nuclear detonation can destroy an entire city; hundreds or thousands of detonations would cause millions of immediate deaths, the destruction of critical infrastructure, and potentially catastrophic climate impacts. The US Navy deploys twelve submarines and is working to replace the entire fleet. Silo-based missiles do not provide any important additional capability.
The Pentagon’s evaluation of the Sentinel ICBM program is expected to conclude in July 2024. Even if the Pentagon fails to provide alternatives, President Biden and Congress should examine this evaluation with a critical eye and incorporate the facts above in their decisions about the Sentinel program.
We call on President Biden and Congress to cancel the Sentinel program and to retire the US land-based missile force. It is expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary. Such a decision will save Americans more than $100 billion and make the world safer.
Sincerely
