June 4, 2009 -- As it pushes ahead with the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon must emphasize the need for a viable prompt global strike capability, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright said today.
As the future scope of conflict shrinks from months to minutes, the Pentagon should focus on global strike options and integrate those options into the department's QDR studies on future force structure, he said during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
DOD is focusing on “what the characteristics and attributes of global strike” will be, and building from that a slate of adequate capabilities -- as well as how to “deliver them in a capable way,” Cartwright said.
At the low end, the global strike requirement calls for the ability to strike any target in the world within one hour, the four-star general said.
That requirement, which is being worked by the Navy and Air Force, has traditionally been focused on outfitting nuclear weapons with conventional armaments. Other efforts have focused on developing a weapon system capable of delivering conventional munitions at hypersonic speeds.
At the higher end of the spectrum, DOD officials want to develop and field a global strike capability that can hit any target worldwide in “milliseconds,” Cartwright said. The only applications capable of meeting that high-end global strike time line would be in the cyber realm, he added.
“At the end of the day, you need something [that can] reach out,” Cartwright said. That need, he added, has been exacerbated by the growing proliferation of short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles. To address that threat, DOD must have a viable slate of global strike options that go beyond nuclear weapons.
“If what we are trying to deal with is a conflict that could be over in a matter of minutes, then you have to have something that deters that conflict and probably needs to be something more than [just] nuclear,” Cartwright said.
Aside from the nuclear response, the current lineup of military capabilities available to rapidly respond to an emerging conflict fall into three areas, according to Cartwright: Garrisoned military forces at bases across the world, rotational forces that can be mobilized to hot spots with short warning and prepositioned forces.
However, the response times for all three range from one to two days to upwards of two weeks, “if they are positioned correctly,” Cartwright said. “Nothing in those [three options] gets at the problem in minutes.”
Additionally, the four-star general dismissed the credibility of using conventional bombers to meet global strike requirements.
“Historically we have thought in terms of conventional bombers. The reality is that today, conventional bombers for global strike [are] probably not credible,” Cartwright said. “They are too slow, they are too intrusive, they require too many ‘mother may I’ [questions] to get from point A to point B.”
Because the ballistic missile threat is the preeminent driver for the need to field a global strike capability, Cartwright noted the missile defense mission must be considered when developing potential solutions.
“You should never think of these [global strike] constructs in an offense or defense approach,” Cartwright warned. “Because that leaves you vulnerable to someone trying to beat or defeat your single approach. So missile defense, for me, is part of global strike. It has to be.”
Aside from addressing the ballistic missile threat, the development of a viable global strike capability also would help DOD's “extended deterrence” efforts to maintain regional stability, the general noted.
“I do believe that we have . . . to find ways, other than weapons of mass destruction, to get to our [national security] end state,” Cartwright said.
“In the Cold War, we thought about this in terms of nuclear weapons . . . what should that look like as we go into the 21st century?” Cartwright said. “Is it credible that [the strategy] is only nuclear weapons. . . what elements of global strike significantly contribute to deterrence?”
Creating a global strike capability that can be relied upon by U.S. allies, and that can be depended upon to be on time, credible and “compelling to the adversary,” could go a long way toward convincing partner nations not to pursue nuclear weapons.
And an era of future conflict, where attributing attacks is a significant challenge since enemies “don't come with a home address,” the decision to exercise the nuclear option is more difficult than ever.
“How do we start to put in place those kinds of capabilities that give our allies confidence, do not start an unnecessary arms race, can address issues of challenged attribution, how do we address that?” Cartwright asked. “That is part of the debate we are tying to push into the Quadrennial Defense Review.” -- Carlo Muñoz