Thread by @AtomicAnalyst

LIVE NOW: Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on "Department of Defense Budget Posture for Nuclear Forces in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2022 and the Future Years Defense Program." armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/depar…

Here are the witnesses (Andrew Walter is a hardline holdover from the Trump administration who somehow still has a job):

Chairman Angus King (I-ME) opens by describing a recent trip he and ranking member Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) took to inspect Minuteman ICBMs and B-52 bombers at Minot AFB, North Dakota.

DASD Tomero is up first. She says a nuclear posture review is expected to begin soon, with analysis to continue during the summer and fall. A broader National Defense Strategy review began on May 3 and will be delivered in January 2022.

Sen. King tells Air Force Global Strike Command's Gen. Ray he was most impressed by the young people at Minot working in various capacities with ICBMs and strategic bombers. He still sounds like someone getting up to speed on the substantial set of programs he now oversees.

Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe says the Navy requires an upgraded SLBM—the Trident II D5 LE2—to outfit new Columbia-class SSBNs starting with the ninth hull to be built. Add that to a new ICBM, the new B-21 bomber, a new nuclear cruise missile, a new SSBN, and multiple upgraded warheads.

Sen. King asks Tomero about her comments about the posture review exploring ways to reduce the role of nuclear weapons. She explains this is in response to high-level guidance, and he review will consider and develop options (presumably for the president to accept or reject).

Sen. Fischer's line of questioning concerns the cost of sustaining the existing Minuteman III ICBM versus the planned GBSD ICBM. Gen. Ray says a new ICBM will be less expensive to maintain than the existing Minuteman III. She's clearly building a case that a new ICBM is cheaper.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asks about the exorbitant cost of 21 new interceptors for the less-than-reliable Ground-Based Missile Defense System in Alaska and California, quoting @Joshua_Pollack, who calls it "a staggering expenditure for such a modest capability."

Now, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asks Gen. Ray questions about the pace and scale of China's missile and nuclear developments. Gen. Ray makes an important point that we don't know as much about China's weapons as we'd like because we have no arms control/reduction agreements with it.

Cotton also grills DASD Tomero about adopting a nuclear no-first-use policy and a sole-use policy, trying to get her to say something he can object to. She explains her role is to coordinate, not impose her personal views. Cotton, huffily, says he's "already troubled" by the NPR.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WVA) asks several questions about nuclear command, control, and communications, and satellite systems, things essential to our nuclear posture but typically given far less congressional attention relative to flashier aircraft, missile, and submarine programs.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), asks several questions about the threat from China, wanting to know from DASD Tomero if the nuclear posture review will examine whether the US needs to deter two adversaries. Tomero says examination of the threats will form the first part of the review.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) asks about subcritical testing and the possible resumption of full-yield nuclear testing in Nevada, a perennial parochial concern for Nevada senators. DASD Walter says enhanced subcritical capabilities are essential to maintaining deterrence.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), asks DASD Tomero, "how much risk are we willing to accept to reduce our deterrence?" As if there's no substantial risk (or cost) to maintaining the nuclear status quo. Tomero replies that "we need to maintain a strong deterrent, as we have for decades."

Gen. Ray says strategic bombers are pretty much unavailable as a part of the triad on a day-to-day basis because it would take "a classified number of hours" to put them on alert, arm them, and stand up the necessary infrastructure to support them, including refueling tankers.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) once again asks about the development of US hypersonic weapons (just as he did two weeks ago at the subcommittee's last hearing).

Sen. King asks about faulty welds in some early units of the missile tubes that will be installed in the new Columbia-class SSBNs, and about the schedule slippage incurred as a result. Here's what those look like:

Sen. King then notes, correctly, that "without the NC3 [nuclear command and control]" nothing else works. He suggests renaming the triad as the quad to reflect that reality.

Sen. King brings up the argument that "we don't need the ICBMs" because the ballistic missile submarines are invulnerable, saying that could change in ten years. Adm. Wolfe says he can discuss the issue in a classified setting.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) comes in to defend the GMD system based largely in his state, clapping back at Sen. Warren's criticism of the very expensive new interceptor missile now in development. How quickly can DOD fill the 20 empty interceptor silos at Fort Greely, he asks?

Sen. Fischer asks DASD Tomero whether there are any plans or proposals for unilateral reductions. Tomero says she's not aware of any. Is Sen. Fischer aware of the substantial unilateral reductions initiated by Pres. George H.W. Bush and Pres. George W. Bush with nary a GOP peep?

Sen. Tuberville gets in one final parochial question for Gen. Ray: "How long will it be before we have someone in this room from Space Command, for nuclear?" Ray says he'll forward the question to Space Command.

That's a wrap. Compared with the subcommittee's last hearing two weeks ago, this was an improvement. More senators attended and the questions (and answers) were generally substantive. But these can be better still, starting with inviting experts with dissenting views to testify.