Conventional Prompt Global Strike: Strategic Asset or Unusable Liability?

Reports of Note

National Defense University, February 2011

Tackling a subject that gained prominence during last year's Senate debate on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), M. Elaine Bunn and Vincent A. Manzo find that a conventional prompt global-strike capability, which would allow the United States to strike global targets with conventional weapons in less than an hour, "would be a valuable strategic asset for some fleeting, denied, and difficult-to-reach targets." They find that a small number of these conventional strike systems, even if they count under New START, would not significantly affect the size of the U.S. deployed nuclear arsenal or substitute for nuclear weapons to hold hard, deeply buried, or mobile targets at risk. Bunn and Manzo conclude that there are plausible scenarios in which the United States would have "actionable intelligence" to strike targets that other conventional weapons could not reach in time. They find that deploying a small number of conventional strike weapons "will be costly" and that some observers might question expending significant sums at a time of declining budgets "for a niche capability." Internationally, the authors recommend that the United States persuade China and Russia that conventional strike systems "would not threaten the credibility" of their deterrent forces. "As the world changes and threats evolve, so too must U.S. priorities, policies, and capabilities," they write. - TOM Z. COLLINA