A group of Democrats led by the Congressional Nuclear and Arms Control Working Group sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Monday calling for a “comprehensive, complete, and impartial assessment” of the controversial nuclear missile program. Sentinel, which soared in costs. over the years.
In the letter, first provided to The Hill, the lawmakers expressed concerns that the Pentagon’s review of the Sentinel program, which is mandated after a significant cost overrun in January, was “being prepared with an end state in mind.”
“Given the imperative to advance nuclear policies that promote stability and prevent escalation, we demand a complete review of all alternatives,” they wrote. “At this critical juncture, we must not allow dynamics and preconceived notions to cloud our judgment when considering whether this program provides our national security or is wasting U.S. taxpayer dollars.
“The American people have a right to know how their money is being spent and for what purpose, especially for our nation’s nuclear policy,” the lawmakers added.
The congressional working group, which is holding a July hearing on Sentinel, is co-chaired by Democratic Senators Ed Markey (Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Representatives John Garamendi (Calif.) and Don Beyer (Calif.) Go. ).
The letter was also signed by several other Democrats, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Representatives Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Barbara Lee (California), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Jerry Nadler (NY).
Monday’s letter signals that concerns are growing about the Sentinel nuclear missile program, with more Democrats pushing for an honest review of the initiative and alternatives.
The Sentinel is intended to replace the more than 50-year-old Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) spread across the rural western United States in underground silos. The 400 ICBMs are part of the nuclear triad, along with bomber planes and submarines.
But the program, which awarded its first contract in 2020 to defense giant Northrop Grumman, the contractor likely to continue developing the program, exceeded its costs by 37% in January, triggering a Nunn-McCurdy breach that requires a review of the program. Pentagon.
Sentinel is now expected to cost about $130 billion, much more than the original $60 billion about a decade ago. Much of the increase is tied to a vast real estate project, as the Air Force seeks to modernize related infrastructure for the new missiles.
In the letter, the lawmakers said the Air Force “relied on a budget projection that underestimated costs, made erroneous assumptions, and relied on incomplete data to obtain congressional approval for authorization of the program.”
“It is unacceptable that such erroneous assumptions were the basis for a project of this magnitude and that these types of errors persist to this day,” they wrote.
Sentinel supporters argue that it is critical that the U.S. maintain its nuclear triad and modernize each step as competition with China and Russia increases. Skeptics question whether ICBMs provide necessary deterrence, given that they do not have the capabilities of fast bomber planes or clandestine submarines.
Modernization, however, remains a key national security strategy under the Biden administration, and Air Force officials have said Sentinel must be funded.
Democratic lawmakers said Monday that Sentinel, following the Nunn-McCurdy breach, can only be continued if there are no alternatives, the cost of the program is reasonable and can be further restricted, and if the program is essential to security. national and a higher priority than other programs that may be cut.
In the letter, however, they pointed to previous comments from the Air Force and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante promising that Sentinel will be funded as “troubling signs that past preferences undermined the outcome of this new review.”
“There must be an honest assessment of the need to pursue this program now and at what cost we are willing to continue,” the lawmakers said. “Inevitably, this means making difficult decisions about how and where to spend taxpayer dollars. It took billions of dollars and at least a decade to justify the $130 billion Sentinel program. This requires a reevaluation.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
