The U.S. faces two peer nuclear competitors for the first time in history — and Sen. Deb Fischer says America is not keeping pace. From 200 bombers to new nuclear shipyards, she lays out what it will take to deter China and defend the Indo-Pacific.
For the first time in history, the United States faces two peer nuclear competitors.
In addition to Russia, China is expanding its nuclear arsenal at breathtaking pace and consistently is exceeding the estimates that we have on what they’re doing.
China is building new missile silos, increasing its warhead stockpile, and rapidly developing the full range of nuclear delivery systems. This is not the strategic environment that we planned for.
The structure of our nuclear forces today was determined during a very different geopolitical moment. The prevailing consensus was that China would remain a more limited strategic competitor. And those assumptions have been proven wrong. China now is increasingly capable — a strategic rival.
President Xi is working with our persistent adversaries, whether that’s Iran, Russia, or North Korea. They’re sharing weapons. They’re sharing technology, resources, and their strategic objectives. Together, these countries are working to challenge American power. They’re working to undermine stability, and they threaten international security.
That reality should inject a sense of urgency into just everything that we do here in this country, from force modernization to industrial capacity, to alliance coordination.
We have to be able to respond. And that means modernizing the bedrock of our security, our nuclear triad.
Our nuclear arsenal remains the foundation of American security. And that means that maintaining the credibility of our deterrent is a national priority. This means, first of all, getting Sentinel back on track. The missile and warhead components are progressing, and much of the challenge that we’re facing lies in the infrastructure — the launch facility, the command centers that support the system.
We now have a direct reporting portfolio manager overseeing the ICBM enterprise, and that centralizes those authorities and direct reporting lines to the Pentagon’s senior leadership. Major design and contract decisions are expected on that soon, and that’s going to provide greater clarity to the program itself when we look at the cost and the schedule ahead. But getting Sentinel right is critical to maintaining, really, a credible deterrence.
Beyond the ICBM force, we must also ensure that the rest of the triad remains strong. The current force structure, which again was set forth in a very different geopolitical environment, is not sufficient. We must size our forces to meet tomorrow’s threats and not just yesterday’s assumptions.
That means we have to expand our bomber force beyond just the program of record. Considering STRATCOM’s and PACOM’s requirements, we know that 100 bombers are not enough. We need at least 200 to meet those current demands.
Additionally, given the threat that’s posed by China, the president should have a full array of options so he can respond to limited nuclear strikes and deter our adversaries from employing an escalate-to-deescalate strategy. And that’s why I fought to authorize over $250 million for the nuclear-powered sea-launched cruise missile in the Senate version of the NDAA this year.
It’s also why I included a provision to authorize the development of two additional theater-range nuclear capacities. Without these theater-range capabilities, the United States risks ceding strategic advantages to China in the Pacific that could undermine the United States’ maritime power in that region.
Of course, having a modern, credible nuclear deterrent with the right mix of capabilities is of little use without the assured ability of the president to command, control, and communicate with his forces. And that’s why a major focus of mine is not just modernizing our nuclear deterrent, but also our NC3 system.
Watch the video for the full remarks.
