On 13 November 2023, Dr. Rajiv Nayan of the Nuclear and Arms Control Centre delivered a talk during the Monday Morning Meeting on ““America’s Strategic Posture”: An Analysis (Report of the US Congressional Commission Released in October 2023)”. The meeting was chaired by Gp. Capt. (Dr.) R K Narang, VM (Retd), Senior Fellow at MP-IDSA. Scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The Report on “America’s Strategic Posture” is intended to provide a bipartisan assessment of the United States strategic posture, and offers a glimpse of its nuclear strategy, even though its recommendations are not binding on the US Government and armed forces. The current report (issued October 2023) is especially significant, as it not only elevates China to the level of a peer competitor, but also envisages a tripolar deterrence scheme where the US and its allies may have to deter (or combat) two nuclear-armed states in the form of China and Russia. The report is also significant because it seems to abandon the US’ diplomatic commitments to nuclear disarmament and arms control, while strongly suggesting a build-up of US nuclear forces and arms in response to perceived threats from the two powers mentioned above. Dr. Rajiv Nayan’s talk shines a light on the evolution of the US’ nuclear doctrine contained within the report, and discusses its implications for regional and global security.

Detailed Report

The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Gp. Capt. Narang, who introduced the Speaker and delivered short introductory remarks on the topic under discussion. He introduced to the audience the structure of the United States Congressional Commission that drafted the report, the nodal agencies involved in its formulation as well as the wide scope of the commission’s deliberations. He then invited the Speaker to address the audience.

Dr. Nayan commenced his talk by providing an overview of the report entitled “America’s Strategic Structure”, the second edition of which was issued in October 2023 after a hiatus of 14 years. He informed the audience that the report aims to provide bipartisan assessments on the US’ long-term strategic posture, and gave a brief overview of the 131 findings and 81 recommendations mentioned in the 2023 report. He then compared the table of contents of both the 2009 and 2023 editions in order to give a bird’s-eye view of the key issues taken up in the report.

Dr. Nayan proceeded to give a brief introduction to the rationale of the report, which according to him entailed reviewing existing policy, assessing factors affecting strategic stability and offering non-partisan assessment of the overall scenario. To accomplish this, the Commission adopted a methodology of meetings with US policymakers, allies and partners and non-governmental experts, classified presentations by members of the intelligence community, field trips to classified locations and referencing from public-domain documents issued by the Pentagon and others.

Next, the Speaker introduced some of the definitions the study provides in order to clarify the subject. He discussed in some detail the concepts of strategy, strategic posture and strategic stability in particular, and questioned the meanings and significance of these, given that some terms, especially strategic stability are contested in nature. He then moved to the definition of what the report refers to as the “US-led international order”, and how it defines military conflict and disruption by “authoritarian” regimes such as China and Russia as the key external variables impacting US vital interests.

The Speaker then discussed the findings of the report, which he assessed as being quite pessimistic in nature. In particular, he called attention to the touting of a “whole-of-government” approach to strategic security, as well as the recognition that major power conflict in today’s era can easily lead to nuclear conflict, which will be a catastrophic outcome. He further noted the report’s recognition that future wars are likely to be very expensive for all parties involved.

Next, the Speaker discussed the report’s discussion of Russia’s nuclear modernisation. The report assessed that Russia would retain the world’s largest nuclear arsenal till 2035, and remained pessimistic on bilateral arms control agreements as it blamed Russia for violation of several agreements such as New START. The report also discussed the conventional capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces, and noted their willingness to take huge losses as seen in Ukraine.

After Russia, Dr. Nayan discussed the report’s treatment of China. Here he urged the audience to pay particular attention to the upgradation of the China ‘threat’ to that of a ‘peer’, marking a significant escalation. The report assessed China’s nuclear arsenal as on track to achieve quantitative parity with the US by the 2030s, and rated highly, the conventional capacity of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Dr. Nayan also drew attention to the report’s claim that a new nuclear test in China’s Lop Nor testing facility could be in the offing. Thus, the report concluded, the cost of inaction over Taiwan may weigh heavily on the US, as it would become easier for the Chinese to take and keep Taiwan with such nuclear cover as its expanded arsenal could provide.

Dr. Nayan also introduced briefly the report’s discussion of “non-peer” nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran, before introducing the geopolitical outlook. Here he introduced one of the key takeaways of the report, its vision of a “tripolar deterrence” mechanism, by which the US and its allies may have to deter two peer competitors (China and Russia) at the same time, as well as non-peer actors such as North Korea and Iran. This, the report argues, is something the US and its allies are not yet prepared for, and thus there is a need to adjust the US’ strategic posture. The Commission’s majority-proposed solution, as reflected in the report, is to increase the nuclear stockpile across the board while adapting the nuclear doctrine to what is called the “modern triad”. This is envisaged as having a dedicated sea, air and land leg each, which is necessary to “ride-out” (i.e. survive) a pre-emptive enemy strike while “launching under attack” (i.e. firing nuclear weapons before they are destroyed). The commission also recommends in the report that the President be given “low-yield” (i.e. tactical/theatre nuclear weapons) options in case of an attack.

After this Dr. Nayan introduced the report’s critical view of the state of nuclear industries in the US, and the recommendation for a top-to-bottom overhaul of said industries in order to prevent technological leakage while preserving optimum performance. He also noted the report’s silence on India and several other countries in the report, as well as the relative de-emphasising of strategic risk reduction and disarmament. He finally offered his own assessment, in which he noted that the report seemed to point to the concern of many lawmakers within the US regarding its vulnerability to strategic surprises (for example, Pearl Harbour, 9/11 and the end of the Cold War), which led to the report’s dismissal of disarmament as a realistic policy, ramping up of a security-centric narrative where peer states again become a core focus, the re-introduction of theatre nuclear weapons, and the provision of doctrinal clarity.

After the conclusion of the Speaker’s talk, the Chair made a few remarks in summary and opened the floor for questions.

Questions and Answers

Mr. Arvind Khare, Research Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre asked whether the US reflection on its role in Afghanistan and Vietnam informed the report’s emphasis on ‘viable opportunities’ to engage US forces, and whether the report had a tutelary function. To the first question, the Speaker replied that the report was not reflecting on Afghanistan and terror in general, as the latter has been completely neglected. To the latter point, he replied that the report is intended not to educate, but to generate debate among the strategic community, while signalling to other countries the US’ vital interests as well.

Capt. Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, asked whether the report envisaged dismantling the US’ land-based stockpile of obsolete missiles, and whether the US strategy emphasised counter-base or counter-population strikes more. To this the Speaker replied that the current report does not intend to dismantle the triad, but rather to upgrade them. To the latter question, he noted that the report explicitly is against counter-value strikes for its targeting strategy, though in a nuclear conflict it may be difficult to differentiate civilians and military personnel.

Ms. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, inquired about tripolar deterrence and its redressal. The Speaker answered by affirming that the fear of tripolar deterrence (with two peers in China and Russia and a non-peer power such as North Korea and Iran) existed throughout the report, but dismissed Iran’s significance as a nuclear threat, while also denying North Korea’s seriousness in actually seeking nuclear conflict with the US. Thus the focus was more on the peer rivals.

With the conclusion of Q&A, the chair gave his closing remarks and brought an end to the meeting.

This report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre.