Top military leaders split with Biden over nuke cruise missile
Milley told the House Armed Services Committee that his advice to the commander in chief would stay private, but said his views on the cruise missile, known as the SLCM-N, and low-yield nuclear weapons “have not” changed.
“I will say that to you though, as members of Congress who have oversight responsibilities, my position on SLCM-N has not changed,” Milley said. “My general view is that this president or any president deserves to have multiple options to deal with national security situations.”
Milley has previously backed new weapons proposed by the Trump administration’s 2018 nuclear blueprint. During his 2019 confirmation process, Milley argued in written answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee that the cruise missile, along with a low-yield sea-launched ballistic missile warhead, “are necessary to enable our flexible and tailored deterrence strategy as we modernize aging nuclear forces.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, meanwhile, downplayed the decision to slash the program, which was disclosed by senior officials last month ahead of the rollout of the Nuclear Posture Review.
“The marginal capability that this provides is far outweighed by the cost,” Austin said at Tuesday’s hearing. “So we had the ability to provide options to the president with a number of means.”
Austin and Milley were testifying on the Pentagon budget alongside Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord.
Milley’s comments, and those of other senior officers, will likely be fodder for defense hawks who will oppose President Joe Biden’s emerging nuclear plans and are already arguing the administration isn’t listening to the advice of its commanders on the best course for the nuclear arsenal.
Though the administration is requesting billions to overhaul each leg of the nuclear triad, the budget proposed slashing funding to develop the cruise missile, which is one of two new weapons the Trump administration proposed adding to the inventory in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The other was a sub-launched low-yield ballistic missile that has already entered the fleet.
A pair of four-star officers have already backed the cruise missile. Rep. Doug Lamborn
(R-Colo.), noted that Adm. Charles Richard, head of U.S. Strategic Command, sent lawmakers a letter recommending the weapon. Gen. Tod Wolters, head of U.S. European Command, told the committee last week that he agreed with Richard’s assessment in support of the weapon.
Lamborn pressed Milley on whether he put his advice in writing. Milley said he did, but that it was classified. He added that he was confident his military advice was received.
“My advice is listened to, and I have an opportunity to express my voice on a continuous basis many many times,” Milley told Lamborn.
Some Democrats have pushed to defund the missile, calling it expensive and destabilizing.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), who chairs the Seapower subcommittee and represents a shipyard that builds submarines, defended the decision to shelve the missile. He argued deploying tactical nukes on attack submarines changes the fleet’s mission “in a clunky way” and is a burden on the boats when low-yield nukes are already deployed to the Navy’s ballistic missile subs.
“The Nuclear Posture Review does provide that low-yield missiles will be deployed on ballistic submarines,” Courtney said. “Again, the question of SLCM is really whether they’re going to be extended to attack submarines.
“That issue of changing, really, the mission of attack submarines is something that is greatly in dispute.” he added. “And I think the administration made the right choice in keeping attack subs focused on their main mission.”
