Today, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, made the following remarks on the hearing titled "Future Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent – Views from Project Atom:"
"Welcome to our hearing on Future Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: Views from Project Atom.
For those who haven’t yet read it, Project Atom is a unique and very timely study on the future of U.S. nuclear deterrence.
It is unique because it brings together perspectives from across the policy and political spectrum to examine this most important of national security issues. Four different think-tanks participated and had what appears to be a spirited debate of the critical issues.
And Project Atom is timely because it is so sorely-needed. As some of the materials for the study say, it helps fill: 'the current deficit in national security attention paid to the continued relevance and importance of U.S. nuclear strategy and force posture.'
This committee has been striving to correct this deficit as well. And we welcome Project Atom and its contributing authors in support of that cause.
Chairman Thornberry’s 'Nuclear Deterrence Week' of hearings and classified briefings this summer was a step along that same path.
This subcommittee will continue our work to inform Congress and the public on the requirements for robust and credible nuclear deterrence long into the future.
My hope is that Congress and the Executive Branch—particularly the next Administration—will take a hard look at Project Atom and what it is trying to tell us.
Because the bottom-line is that the world is not standing still. We are not returning to the Cold War—but we are also not returning to the 1990s when so many believed international peace and love would reign indefinitely.
We need a clear-eyed view of the world’s other nuclear states—and would-be nuclear states—and what we must do to ensure nuclear deterrence holds and nonproliferation prevails.
In the short-term, we need to focus on building a nuclear strategy, posture, and enterprise that is flexible and responsive. Our witnesses have lots of suggestions on that front, and this committee has advanced legislation towards that goal.
In the longer-term, I believe we need to rethink the logic behind a policy that keeps the United States indefinitely maintaining the nuclear capabilities we had in 1990.
As other nations—Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan—continue to research and deploy new nuclear capabilities over the coming decades, the logical question we must ask is this: 'Will the nuclear deterrence capabilities the United States had in 1990 still be credible in 2040?'
Unless you believe global zero is going to happen any day now—and if you do then I have a bridge to sell you—we’re going to have to reexamine this policy.
A choice will be made on this front—not right now, but sometime in the coming years.
In the meantime, we can discuss all of this with our panel of witnesses. Thank you for being here today and for contributing to this study. We know it takes time to prepare for these hearings, and we appreciate it. Our witnesses are:
• Dr. Clark Murdock Senior Advisor Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Dr. Keith Payne Professor and Department Head Missouri State University
• Mr. Elbridge Colby Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow Center for a New American Security
• Dr. Barry Blechman Co-Founder The Stimson Center
