Top Defense Officials Testify Before Senate Armed Services Committee On Afghanistan And Counterterrorism

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley seen in 2021. (Patrick Semansky-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON: During testimony today, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, publicly broke with the recent decision to cancel an in-development, nuclear-capable cruise missile design.

However, Milley pushed back at the idea that his advice, and that of other uniformed officers who have expressed support for the nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N), was simply ignored by the White House.

The issue of the SLCM was likely to come up during the hearing, but it was put front and center thanks to a Monday letter from Adm. Charles Richard, the head of US Strategic Command, who wrote to lawmakers that without the cruise missile, “a deterrence and assurance gap exists,” according to Defense News.

“To address this gap, a low-yield, non-ballistic capability to deter and respond without visible generation is necessary to provide a persistent, survivable, regional capability to deter adversaries, assure allies, provide flexible options, as well as complement existing capabilities. I believe a capability with these attributes should be re-examined in the near future,” Richard wrote.

Early in a four-hour hearing in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Milley was asked by Rep. Mike Turner, R-OH., whether the general had changed his previously stated support for the SLCM-N program. Milley responded simply “I have not, that’s correct.”

That was followed up by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., the ranking member of HASC’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, who asked directly whether Milley felt his “best military advice” was listened to during the Nuclear Posture Review process.

Responded Milley: “As I have stated many, many times before, my best military advice to this president or any president is a matter between me and that president. I will say that to you, those members of Congress who have oversight responsibilities, my position on SLICM-N has not changed, as I mentioned to Rep. Turner. My general view is that this president or any president deserve to have multiple options to deal with national security situations. And my advice is listened to. And I have an opportunity to express my voice on a continuous basis many, many times.”

Lamborn, in response, indicated he may try to receive Milley’s written recommendations around the nuclear weapon.

At the heart of the question about the SLCM-N is a debate about whether low-yield nuclear weapons make the threshold for nuclear war lower, or whether they provide another way to check nuclear competitors — most notably Russia — that are investing in similar low-yield weapons.

The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called on the Navy to sunset the nuclear-version of its Tomahawk cruise missile, which was retired by 2013, according to the Federation of American Scientists. The Trump administration’s 2018 NPR effectively reversed course, recommending the development of two new nukes: a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile — the SLCM-N — and the W76-2 nuclear warhead, a low-yield nuke launched from ballistic missile submarines that first deployed in 2019.

Last year, the Navy asked for $15.2 million to begin research and development activities for SLCM-N and an accompanying nuclear warhead. However, in the fiscal 2023 budget request, the SLCM-N was zeroed out, with a Pentagon official telling reporters that move was the result of the Nuclear Posture Review.

The W76-2 low-yield warhead is already deployed and was not defunded like the SLCM-N was. Rep. Joe Courtney, the Connecticut Democrat who serves as chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, pointed to the W76-2 still being active to try and counter the narrative that the Biden administration has unilaterally disarmed.

“The question of SLCM is really whether they’re going to be extended to attack submarines. And I would just tell you, representing a district with a lot of submariners, that issue of changing, really, the mission of attack submarines, is something that is greatly in dispute,” Courtney said. “And I think the administration made the right choice in terms of keeping the attack subs focused on their main mission, which is to have an agile, mobile [capability]…. And I think putting tactical weapons on there really changes it in a really clunky way, in terms of moving forward.”