Graphs and tables.

Today, the nuclear forces of the United States consist of about 10,000 deployed warheads that can be delivered by long-range bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Those forces (also known as the nuclear triad) are designed to deter a nuclear war and, if necessary, fight one. U.S. nuclear forces are likely to shrink throughout the 1990s as limits from recent arms control agreements take effect. By 2003, the United States will have only about 3,500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, provided that the second Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Treaty (START II) is ratified and carried out. Some shrinkage has already taken place over the past two years, especially among land-based missiles and bombers. In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has terminated virtually every program to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, largely in response to budget pressures and the end of the Cold War.

What forces will the United States require to deter nuclear war in the post-Cold War period? A nuclear attack on this country is less likely than it has been or decades: the Soviet Union has collapsed; the chances of a major war occurring in Europe are significantly diminished; and Russia and the United States, motivated by two arms reduction treaties and several unilateral initiatives, are reducing the size and readiness of their nuclear arsenals. Nevertheless, some uncertainty about the future remains. Russia's democracy is fragile, and its nuclear arsenal will continue to be extensive until early in the next decade. How should the United States structure its nuclear forces to account for these factors while also responding to pressure to reduce spending for national defense? The D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile is the only nuclear weapon that the United States will continue to buy throughout the 1990s, and as a result, its future is a key issue in the debate about restructuring U.S. nuclear forces. This study, requested by the House Committee on Armed Services, analyzes the costs and effects of several alternatives to the Navy's plans for the D5 missile and the Trident ballistic-missile submarine force in which it is deployed. In keeping with the mandate of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide objective analysis, this study makes no recommendations.