Bajema, Natasha. “2022 U.S. Budget Funds New ICBMs—A Reckless Diversion?” IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News, IEEE, 2 July 2021, 14:30 GMT, spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/2022-united-states-budget-funds-new-icbms-reckless-diversion.
Article title: 2022 U.S. Budget Funds New ICBMs—A Reckless Diversion?
Minuteman III’s successors could represent a dangerous misstep
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO
My summary of the article:
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are one of the three legs of the US nuclear triad, which is comprised of the nuclear ICBM, nuclear-armed bombers, and submarine-launched nuclear missiles. ICBMs, especially, are given close attention to with the rise of modern digital technology, since the launching of ICBMs (which would most likely lead to nuclear warfare) only involve the flick of a button by an individual. Some people are pessimistic of the possibility that modern technology (such as social media, deepfakes, cyber weapons, machine learning, and so on) may lead to a miscalculated or an accidental launch via their ability to spread unreliable information and information overload.
According to the article, proponents of ICBMs view ICBMs as an effective nuclear detergent that raises the threshold for nuclear war, and thus reduces the likelihood of a particular nation attacking another with nuclear weaponry. Moreover, they argue that the fact that the US possesses ICBMs helps potential threats to recognize the implicit message that the US will defend its own interests if attacked; this helps other nations avoid serious miscalculation, preventing nuclear warfare. Opponents of ICBMs, however, argue specifically against ICBMs themselves as a means of containing nuclear arsenal. They view ICBMs as high unstable, increasing the risk of accidental launch and nuclear warfare; after all, a flick of a button is all that is necessary to launch an ICBM.
However, the main argument that Bajema, the author of the article, wants to make is that neither side of the argument, both for and against ICBMs, fail to consider the potential threat of emerging digital technology into account. Marina Favaro, a researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, warns the potential of new emerging digital technologies to be used to distort information, which may force leaders of nuclear possessing nations to make decisions that may start nuclear warfare. She specifically points out the potential ability of digital technology to disrupt the flow of information and contract decision-making windows.
Meanwhile, president Biden, to the surprise of many, has decided to raise federal investment for strategic weapons modernization; a central part of this plan is that the aging Minuteman III ICBMs will be replaced by the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Bajema believes that this decision reflects a bipartisan consensus amongst the national defense community that the nuclear triad is becoming increasingly important and necessary as a means of hedging possible nuclear threats of other nations such as North Korea.
My response to the article:
As a South Korean citizen living right next to a nation with perhaps the greatest nuclear threat and possibility of starting nuclear warfare, I completely agree with the US government's decision to raise their investment towards the nuclear triad, including ICBMs. Indeed, this means that the US will continue to have the greatest nuclear arsenal of all nations in the world. However, the reason I see this as a positive phenomenon is that it will deter weaker and more unstable nations like North Korea and Iran from launching nuclear weapons or even developing nuclear weapons in the first place. After all, I have greater intrinsic trust and relief towards the US government than those of North Korea, given that North Korea is a much more unstable nation than the US.
Of course, ideally speaking, the best scenario to end any possibility of nuclear warfare of any form is for all nations to throw away all their nuclear weapons. This, obviously, cannot be the case. There will always to unstable nations that invest on nuclear weaponry to, perhaps, threaten other nations with their nuclear arsenal to meet their political or economic needs. With this being said, there inevitably has to be a 'superpower' with the greatest nuclear arsenal of all nations to act as a nuclear detergent that prevents, by force, the use of nuclear weapons from elsewhere in the world. This, again, is not an ideal solution; but given that the ideal solution is an impossible solution that will only be possible in a utopian Earth, this is, in my point of view, the best solution.
Comments