Introduction

Nuclear weapons have re-entered the global discourse with renewed urgency. Recent developments highlight escalating tensions in the arena of nuclear armament:

• Russia is openly threatening nuclear strikes against the West, attributing its actions to the military support provided to Ukraine.
• China is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities, becoming a significant nuclear power.
• North Korea persists in enhancing its missile and nuclear arsenal.
• The ongoing debates regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions raise further concerns about regional stability.

In this context, the United States is modernizing its strategic deterrent. However, the pace of these developments may appear slow relative to its adversaries’ aggressive expansion. This highlights crucial differences in nuclear strategies between the U.S. and its potential adversaries.

Divergent Strategies: U.S. vs. Adversaries

While the U.S. is primarily focused on deterrence against large-scale strategic attacks, nations like Russia and China prioritize not only deterrence but also nuclear warfighting capabilities optimized for regional conflicts. This approach invites a reconsideration of how the U.S. views its own nuclear strategy.

The Need for Extended Deterrence

For over seventy years, extended deterrence has been a cornerstone of U.S. security policy. Yet, the current modernization program, established years ago, may be insufficient for deterring adversarial nuclear use in regional conflicts. U.S. capabilities must evolve to meet the changing threats posed by adversaries like Russia and China.

Understanding Key Concepts: Deterrence and Warfighting

Defining Deterrence

Deterrence can be understood in two primary ways:

• Deterrence by Punishment: Threatening unacceptable retaliatory measures to dissuade specific actions.
• Deterrence by Denial: Making it unfeasible for opponents to achieve their objectives.

For deterrence to function effectively, opposing leaders must perceive U.S. threats as credible. This credibility hinges on their understanding of American resolve in the face of aggression.

The Nature of Warfighting

Warfighting refers to military operations aimed at neutralizing an opponent’s abilities on the battlefield. This strategic focus contrasts with deterrent capabilities, primarily aimed at safeguarding the homeland against national-level attacks.

Comparative Analysis: Strategic vs. Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons

U.S. nuclear strategy has historically utilized both strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs) tailored for different purposes:

• Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Intended for large-scale deterrence, capable of targeting critical enemy infrastructure.
• Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Generally lower-yield and designed for regional conflict scenarios, these weapons are now a focal point for Russia and China.

The differentiation between these types is vital for formulating effective deterrence strategies, yet it has become blurred in public perception following the Cold War.

The Evolving Landscape: Focus on Adversaries

Russia possesses approximately 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons, which it views as integral to modern warfare capability. Similarly, China is enhancing its arsenal, aiming for a posture that may include nuclear warfighting.

This stands in stark contrast to the U.S. approach, which has often downplayed the role of nuclear weapons in conventional military strategies. As a result, the U.S. may face credibility challenges when addressing adversarial threats in conventional and nuclear domains.

Addressing the Gaps: U.S. Nuclear Modernization

To effectively deter nuclear warfighting capabilities among adversaries, the U.S. must expand its nuclear modernization efforts. Current programs, while necessary, focus on strategic deterrence and may not adequately address the regional threats posed by adversaries’ non-strategic arsenals.

Strategic Recommendations

Key areas for development include:

• Enhancing the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Nuclear (SLCM-N) program to introduce tactical capabilities.
• Investing in a diverse range of nuclear delivery systems to provide flexible responses to varying threats.
• Incorporating modern technological advancements, such as hypersonic weapons, to penetrate enemy defenses effectively.

These improvements are crucial for assuring allies of U.S. commitment and capability in deterring nuclear use by adversaries.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Strategic Adjustment

The nuclear postures of both Russia and China reveal a comprehensive strategy that encompasses deterrence, coercion, and warfighting. The U.S. nuclear modernization program, while necessary, must now adapt to meet the complexities of a multi-polar nuclear landscape and adequately deter not only strategic threats but also potential regional nuclear conflicts.

As the global security environment becomes increasingly precarious, the U.S. must ensure its nuclear capabilities can address both strategic and non-strategic challenges effectively. Failure to do so risks escalating nuclear tensions and undermines national and allied security.