By Cliff Montgomery – Nov. 30th, 2014
Just a few years ago, the Defense Department announced plans to repair problems in the management of its nuclear forces. On Nov. 14th, the Pentagon announced a new plan meant to solve the continued mismanagement of American nuclear capabilities.
The new plan “sounds like a strategy doomed to fail without significant adjustments,” according to Hans Kristensen, who serves as Nuclear Information Project Director at the Federation of American Scientists, which often works as an independent watchdog of federal policies and activities.
“The Pentagon is already planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars,” continued Kristensen. “on modernizing submarines, bombers, missiles, warheads, and production facilities over the next decade (and even more later).”
“Those modernization plans are already too expensive, under tremendous fiscal pressure, and competing for money needed to sustain and modernize conventional forces,” stated Kristensen.
Kristensen then asked a simple question: “So who is going to pay for the billions of dollars extra needed to fix the nuclear business?”
It’s a good question…
Below, The American Spark quotes most of the Pentagon’s recently released Internal Nuclear Enterprise Review Summary:
“Earlier this year, after a series of missteps involving the nation’s nuclear deterrent forces and their senior leadership, Secretary Hagel directed both an internal Department of Defense (DoD) review and an external, independent review of the DoD nuclear enterprise.” […]
“The review leaders and their staffs visited all of the operational U.S. nuclear bases and key supporting facilities. They interviewed more than a thousand officers, enlisted personnel, civilians, and contractors from across the armed services. Both review teams found participants that were open, candid, and eager to engage in dialogue regarding their ability to perform their mission.
“The internal review was specifically asked by the Secretary of Defense to examine the nuclear mission regarding personnel, training, testing, command oversight, mission performance, and investment. This review also looked into mission readiness and other operational issues and therefore remains classified. The internal report is, however, consistent with the findings and conclusions of the external review.
“The internal review disclosed systemic problems across the nuclear enterprise. In general, these problems can be divided into several categories: longstanding, known problems that remained unaddressed and so became, over time, under-reported, known problems that were addressed but the corrective actions made the problem worse (or created new problems), and problems that were common knowledge in the field but which were never communicated to leadership.
“Significantly, the review determined that many of these problems were inextricably inter-related, with one problem begetting another. While many issues will need additional investments, in many cases the necessary corrective actions are cultural and structural. These measures will take time to implement, and must also be sustained over the long-term.
“The review provided a number of recommendations for both short and long-term action – some are service- specific, some are at the departmental level and others are relevant to the entire enterprise.
“The review team made clear that this essential mission requires refocused attention and resources at all levels of the Department. The review organized its inquiry, findings, and recommendations into four categories: personnel, inspections, investment, and organization.
– “The review of personnel issues identified issues with accountability, manning and skills mix, career development, morale and recognition, the personnel reliability program, and security forces.
“Within these areas, some issues manifested at the departmental level, in both services, or in a specific service. Key findings include:
- A blurring of the lines between accountability and perfection in the Air Force
- Inadequate facilities and equipment, including IT systems, for the civilian workforce
A rapidly aging civilian workforce in Navy shipyards, with a significant mid-career gap
Lack of promotion opportunities generally in the nuclear career field and lack of a defined, sustainable career path for nuclear officers in Air Force, and career constraints resulting from nuclear specialization for both officers and enlisted personnel
Stress on submarine crews created by shipyard shortfalls in the Navy
Unduly burdensome, overly technical, and excessively risk-averse implementation of the personnel reliability program.
– “The internal review’s inquiry into inspections found that the nuclear enterprise is subject to a culture of excessive inspections.
“The problem is particularly acute in the Air Force, in part owing to the relative scope of inspections (a submarine inspection involves 180 sailors, a missile wing inspection involves ~4000 airmen) and in part owing to important cultural differences between the services – in particular, the demand for perfection and lack of a meaningful self-assessment program.
– “Regarding investment, the review surveyed an aging nuclear enterprise with a focus on sustainment, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding, and infrastructure issues. The review determined that as this infrastructure continues to age, sustainment will become increasingly more difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Findings included:
- The lack of ‘weapon system’ approach to the ICBM force, leading to disparate and inefficient sustainment and investment decisions for different system components
- Component issues resulting from an aging, unique, and (relative to other weapons programs) small- sized, programs and systems
- Serious shortfalls in basic O&M requirements, and
- Shipyard inefficiency caused by use of obsolete and/or temporary facilities.
– “Finally, looking at the organization of the nuclear enterprise, the internal review echoed the finding of the external review regarding the absence, at the departmental level, of an integrated ‘nuclear enterprise.’
“This absence led to reduced awareness of issues in the nuclear field, particularly those issues that cut across individual stovepipes.
“Collectively, the internal and external reviews found a nuclear workforce that was dedicated, capable, and performing well in spite of challenges resulting from being understaffed, under-resourced, and reliant on an aging and fragile supporting infrastructure in an over-inspected and overly risk-averse environment.
“Both reports identified serious issues with potential real world consequences if not addressed — some of which require long term and permanent cultural and structural changes.
“As a result of these reports, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive effort to revitalize and integrate the nuclear enterprise.
“As long as the need for effective U.S. nuclear deterrence endures, the United States must operate its nuclear forces with world-class professionalism, ensure its plans and capabilities are tailored to emerging nuclear threats, and retain the human capital and infrastructure to adapt as the strategic landscape changes.
“The Department is using this opportunity to refocus attention and resources to continue to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our nuclear enterprise.”
