Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning 15 July 2002 Capabilities Based Planning for the New Triad 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201

Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning

15 July 2002

Capabilities Based Planning for the New Triad

8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201Fort Belvoir, VA. 22060-6201

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED2

Introduction

Attachments

Worlds and Operational Situations

Requirements Generation

Adaptive Options Database

Force Structure Guidelines

Conclusions and Recommendations

Acronyms

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary

Appendices

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED3

Purpose

• Provide a report detailing a “proof of concept” capabilities-based approach for developing integrated strategic strike planning recommendations– Context– Study Method

• Worlds and Operational Situations (OPSITs)• Requirements Generation• Adaptive Options Database• Force Structure Guidelines

• Provide recommendations for use of the method developed in this study

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED4

Context

Framework for the Strategic Force Continuum

PolicyGoals

Assure

DeterDissuade

Defeat

New TriadOffense (Nuclear, Non-Nuclear SOF, Info Ops)

Infrastructure (Long-Term, Responsive)

Defenses(Active, Passive)

C4ISRAdaptivePlanning

Continuum of Capabilities

• Non-nuclear strike • Selective, tailored options

• Fight from forward positions

• Swift, decisive defeat

Capabilities-Based Planning

Define and implement as practical planning tool

• Depth, breadth of targeting• Rapid reconstitution/ upload

Hedge against uncertainty, surprise Long-term horizon; risk management

QDRDPGNPR

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED5

Capabilities-Based Planning• Planning is driven by uncertainty of threat and certainty of surprise

– Focus on range of capability needs vice specific threat• Diverse set of capabilities is needed to deal with plausible adversaries

– Not country specific but…– Multiple contingencies and real geographies

• Capability includes both content and capacity– Content-performance at the individual platform level– Capacity-performance across force structure

• Study focus is strategic strike capability• Analysis captures strike targets through the lens of a range of possible

adversaries– Types of targets lead to content– Numbers of targets lead to capacity

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED6

Today

~ 20-30 years hence

• Top-down independentapproach

• Proven and credible method

• Accounts for uncertainty

• Plausibly bounds the spectrum of challenges and possibilities

• Scenarios tied to worlds

• Integrated focus on the future to help today’s decision making

Scenario-Based Planning:Alternative Future Worlds Approach

IIIII

I

Worlds

“A tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative futureenvironments in which one’s decisions might be played out.”

Peter Schwartz, Art of the Long View

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED7

Study Methodology

REQUIREMENTS

TRADEOFF

ANALYSIS

2020 Force Structure Recommendations

Inputs2020Alternative Worlds

Operational Situations

Threat+

Target Base

Capabilities

AssumeNPR

Offensive Force

Options for Modernizing and

AugmentingU.S. Offensive

Forces

AdaptiveOptions

Database

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED8

Worlds and OPSITs

REQUIREMENTS

TRADEOFF

ANALYSIS


Inputs

Threat+

Target Base

Capabilities

AssumeNPR

Offensive Force



Forces

AdaptiveOptions

Database

2020Alternative Worlds


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED9

RequirementsGeneration

Process

Developing the Futures Framework

Representative Spectrum of Targets, Geographies,and Constraints for Force Planners

III

II

I

12

34

12

34

1234

OPSITsMore Benign

More Stressful

Today

2020

WorldsDifferent Targets

Different Geographies

Different Constraints

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED10

Alternative Worlds

UncertaiUncertain Worldn World

Worlds were developed for this study by varying the following factors consistently and within plausible bounds:

Key Variables

•International System–International organizations–Treaty regimes

•Key adversaries–Intentions–Capabilities

•Health of global economy–Broad growth–Flat growth–Recession

World I:Global Consensus

- Rogues and non-state actors challenge

World II:Great Power Conflict

- Peer competitors challenge

World III: Global Disorder

- Multi-polar challenges

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED11

Operational Situations*

World IGlobal

Consensus

World IIGreatPower

Conflict

World IIIGlobal

Disorder

OPSITs reflect world in which they occur

OPSIT 1: Iraqi chemical attack on forward U.S. forces OPSIT 2: Sudan and non-state actor bio-attack on CONUS OPSIT 3: Libya imminent chem/bio-attack on European allies OPSIT 4: Pakistan coup and possible nuclear conflict with India

OPSIT 1: Sino-Russian strategic nuclear attack on CONUS OPSIT 2: Imminent N. Korean attack against forward U.S. forces OPSIT 3: Discovery of Chinese missiles in Argentina OPSIT 4: Imminent Iraqi WMD attack on CONUS

OPSIT 1: Egypt radiological attack on forward U.S. forces OPSIT 2: Naval confrontation with Russia over Baltic States OPSIT 3: China Taiwan invasion goes nuclear against U.S. assets OPSIT 4: Iran territorial aggression against Saudi Arabia

* Representative situations are not derived from current operational planning

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED12

Requirements Generation

TRADEOFF

ANALYSIS


InputsREQUIREMENTS

Threat+

Target Base

Capabilities

AssumeNPR

Offensive Force



Forces

AdaptiveOptions

Database

2020Alternative Worlds


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED13

Requirements Methodology

Use resulting ObjectivesMatrix in Force Structure

Development

Identifystrategic

strikecapabilities

Extrapolate current and projected target dataWorlds

andOPSITs

Summarize preliminary Requirements across OPSITs by

capability

Use planning factors to develop objectives for each capability

Assign target packages for each OPSIT

Tie OPSIT targets to required capabilities

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED14

Identifying Required Strategic Capabilities

Potential Operational Guidance

• Damage Limitations

• Full Dimensional Protection

• Overcome Defense

Range of Potential Target Types

Potential Political Constraints

• Country Restrictions

• Measured Response

Target Related

Targeting Conditions

Soft Point Target Kill (SP)

Soft Area Target Kill (SA)

Hard Point Target Kill (HP)

Hard Area Target Kill (HA)

Shallow Buried Target Kill (SB)

Deep Underground Target Kill (DU)

Mobile Target Kill (MOB)

Prompt 1 (P1)

Prompt 2 (P2)

Chem/Bio Agent Defeat (AD)

Penetrate (Pen)

Political ConstraintsAvoid Overflight (OF)

Limit Collateral Damage (CD)

Capabilities

Potential Geographies

ICBMs

Soft Strategic

Infrastructure

Time Urgent WMD

Mobile ICBMsMajor Economic Target

Others

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED15

2002/2007/2012 Target Base

Deriving Target Bases for Each World

Target Bases by World

Adversaries

Targ

et C

ats. Russia China Iraq Iran

WMD ForcesConventional ForcesWar Supporting Infra.Leadership

####

####

####

####

2007 2012 2020

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Linear Regression

Extrapolations

ICBM Silos: Iraq

Extrapolations Max

Min

World I

World II

World IIIIllustrative DataIllustrative Data

2002Data Points Extrapolations

Illustrative Curve

Intelligence Estimates

Today

World I Target Base

World II Target Base

World III Target BaseToday

2020

III

II

I

Worlds

20072012

IntelligenceCommunity

Input

IranWMD ForcesConventional ForcesWar Supporting Infra.Leadership

####

####

####

Russia China Iraq####


####

####

####



####

####

####


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED16

Translating Targets to Capabilities

OPSIT 1: Russia

OPSIT 4: Iraq

OPSIT 2: DPRK

OPSIT 3: Iran

World I Target Base

World III Target Base

Assign target types to capabilities and relate pertinent targeting conditions and political constraints by adversary and selected mission

Assign Target Packagesfor Each OPSIT

World II, OPSIT 2

Target RelatedSoft Point Target Kill

Soft Area Target Kill

Hard Point Target Kill

Hard Area Target Kill

Shallow Buried Target Kill

Deep Underground Target Kill

Mobile Target Kill

Capabilities Numerical

#######

Egypt Russia China IranWMD ForcesConventional ForcesWar Supporting Infra.Leadership

####

####

####

####

Iraq Sudan Libya PakWMD ForcesConventional ForcesWar Supporting Infra.Leadership

####

####

####

####


Prompt 1

Prompt 2

Chem/Bio Agent Defeat

Penetrate

Political ConstraintsAvoid Overflight

Limit Collateral Damage

Russia DPRK Arg IraqWMD ForcesConventional ForcesWar Supporting Infra.Leadership

####

####

####

####

Associate with

Target- Related

Capabilities by OPSIT

Broad categories to be targeted are specified within each OPSIT

Develop OPSIT-Based Preliminary Capability Requirement

World II Target Base

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED17

Summarize Preliminary RequirementsOPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 4

Egypt Russia China Iran

66 267 171 11249 113 77 8841 194 71 461 12 7 1

10 40 30 133 106 53 175 24 12 21

World 3Capabilities

World IIIWorld II World I

Target Related

Soft Point Target Kill700

0

107

193

5391

127

66

267

171112

199

World I World II World III

Iraq

Sudan Libya

PakistanDPRK

Argentina Iraq

Egypt

Russia

ChinaIran

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

4

Russia

674

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

…But we don’t plan against the worst case

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED18

Develop Planning Factors

Target coverage sufficient to credibly deter/defeat accounted for with planning factors

Categories of Actors Broad TargetClasses Soft Point Soft Area Hard Point Hard Area Shallow

BuriedDeep

Underground Mobile

WMD Forces 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.80

Conventional Forces 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.25

Infrastructure 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25

Leadership 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.60

WMD Forces 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.75 0.90


Infrastructure 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25

Leadership 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.80

WMD Forces 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.90 1.00


Infrastructure 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.60

Leadership 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00

Great Power:Global Advantage, but Maintain World Order

Regional Hegemon:Regional Hegemony but

Maintain World Order

Rogue State:Global Hostility to

Change World Order

Adversary Intent

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED19

700

0

107

193

5391

127

66

267

171

112

199


Iraq

Sudan Libya

PakistanDPRK

Argentina Iraq

Egypt

Russia

ChinaIran

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

4

Russia

674Soft Point Target Kill

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

Applying Planning Factors

Planning Factors

PreliminaryRequirements

FinalRequirements

Soft Point Target Kill

Categories of Actors Broad TargetClasses Soft Point Soft Area Hard Point Hard Area Shallow

BuriedDeep

Underground Mobile

WMD Forces 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.80


Infrastructure 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25

Leadership 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.60

WMD Forces 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.75 0.90


Infrastructure 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.25

Leadership 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.80

WMD Forces 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.90 1.00


Infrastructure 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.60

Leadership 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00

Great Power:Global Advantage, but Maintain World Order

Regional Hegemon:Regional Hegemony but

Maintain World Order

Rogue State:Global Hostility to

Change World Order

Adversary Intent

700

0

90 130

40 55 60

30

6290

55

150


Iraq Sudan Libya

Pakistan DPRKArgentina Iraq

EgyptRussia

ChinaIran

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

OP

SIT

1

OP

SIT

2

OP

SIT

3

OP

SIT

4

2

Russia

370

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

Apply Planning Factors

Capability objective defined by most challenging OPSIT after application of planning factors

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED20

Deriving Objectivesfor Conditions/Constraints

PenetrateChem-Bio Agent Defeat

Prompt 2Prompt 1

Limit Collateral Damage

250

107

193

127Sudan

Iraq

199

Libya

Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight250

107

193

91

127Sudan Iraq

199

Libya


107

193

91

127

66Iraq

Sudan

Iraq

199

Libya


107

193

5391

127

66

171

Iraq

Sudan

DPRK

Iraq China

199

Libya


107

193

53

91

127

66

171

Iraq

Sudan

PakistanDPRK

Argentina

Iraq

EgyptRussia

China

199

Libya

Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight

90

130

40

5560

30

0

90

55

Iraq

Sudan

Pakistan

DPRK Argentina IraqEgypt

Russia

China

Iran2Russia

0

150

Libya

Avoid Overflight

Associated Conditions/Constraints: Soft-Point Target Kill

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

Final Requirements

Mobile Target KillDeep Underground Target KillShallow Buried Target Kill

Hard Area Target KillHard Point Target Kill

Soft Area Target Kill

700

0

90 130

40 55 60

30

6290

55

150

Iraq Sudan Libya

Pakistan DPRKArgentina Iraq

EgyptRussia

China

Iran2

Russia

370

Soft-Point Target Kill

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

Associated conditions and constraints produceother drivers for trade-off analysis

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED21

Objectives Matrix

Illustrative Data

Illustrative Data

Summary requirements for developing2020 strategic force composition

Targ

et R

elat

edPolitical

Constraints


UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED22


REQUIREMENTS

TRADEOFF

ANALYSIS


Inputs2020

Alternative Worlds


Threat+

Target Base

Capabilities

AssumeNPR

Offensive Force



Forces

AdaptiveOptions

Database

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED23

OperationalForces*

ResponsiveForces*

NewOptions


* Operational and Responsive Forces as outlined in 2001 Nuclear Posture Review

AdaptiveOptions Database

Platform/delivery/warhead options related to capability and characterized by various factors.

OperationalFactors

PoliticalFactors

AcquisitionFactors

Capabilities

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED24

Force Structure Guidelines

REQUIREMENTS

TRADEOFF

ANALYSIS


Inputs2020

Alternative Worlds

OPSITS

Threat+

Target Base

Capabilities

AssumeNPR

Offensive Force



Forces

AdaptiveOptions

Database

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED25

Developing Force StructureRecommendations

Assess Related Acquisition Factors

• Cost• Time• Technical Feasibility

Assess Related Political Factors

• Domestic Reaction• International Reaction

Assess Related Operational Factors

• Reliability• Range• Rapid Retargetability• Survivability

Assess Options Against Spectrum of Capabilities

• Soft Point• Hard Point• etc…..

Adaptive Options

Database

Objectives

Option Decision Matrices

Trade-Off Analysis• Evaluate and Prioritize Options

Forces Development• By Target-Related Capability

Force Structure Assessment and Testing

• Iterate Considering Force Level Issues

Inputs

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED26

Assess Options Against Targeting Objectives

Options Capabilities

Roll-Up

Hard PointTargeting

Conditions/Constraints

P1 P2 Pen CD OF ADConstraint-WeightedOptions

AssessmentRisk Weighting

(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3

Option 1 N P Y N Y N

Option 2 N N Y P Y N

Option N N N Y Y Y Y

Performance MeasureNo (N)

Partial (P)Yes (Y)

Conditions/Constraints Coverage Index:

Outstanding

Good

Sufficient

Marginal

Poor

Risk weight assigned to account for downside impact of not having options able to meet

conditions/constraints

Inputs

Adaptive Options

Database

Objectives

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED27

Option/Capabilities Summary

Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




CapabilitiesOption

SP SA HP HA SB DU MOB

Option 1

Option 2

Option N

Capabilities Coverage Index:

Outstanding

Good

Sufficient

Marginal

Poor

Options Assessed Against Objectives

Hard PointTargeting




(Proposed)9 3 3 1 1 3




Display relative performance of each option for each capability

Target-Related Capabilities

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED28

Assess Options Against Other Than Target-Related Factors

Acquisition FactorsCost Time Technical

FeasibilityRoll-Up

Option1

Option2

OptionN

Outstanding

Good

Sufficient

Marginal

Unacceptable

Seven Option Decision Matrices

Assessment of characterizing factors to limit range of decision-making variables

Operational FactorsReliability Range Rapid Survivability Roll-Up

Option1

Option2

OptionN

Outstanding

Good

Sufficient

Marginal

Unacceptable

Political FactorsDomesticReaction

InternationalReaction Roll-Up

Option1

Option2

OptionN

Least provocative

More provocative

Provocative

Very Provocative

Most Provocative

Poor

Poor

Most Provocative

Retargetability

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED29

Prioritize Options

Evaluation• Option N: Good capability coverage but significant issues in other factors

• Option 2: Sufficient capability coverage; operational acquisition factors satisfactory but major political challenges

• Option 1: Sufficient and acceptable in related factorsConclusion

• Option 1 is top priority for Hard Point Target

Capabilities Acquisition Factors

Operational Factors

Political Factors

Constraint Weighted

Option Assessment:

HP

Applicability Across

Spectrum

Option

Option 1

Option 2

Option

N

Options Decision:Outstanding

Good

Sufficient

Marginal

Poor

Options/Capabilities Summary Hard Point Options Decision MatrixOption Capabilities Roll-UpCapabilities

OptionSP SA HP HA SB DU MOB

Option 1

Option 2

Option N

IllustrativeAssessment:Hard Point

Applicability across spectrum

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED30

Forces Development

Objective Filled

100%

<100%

Start

Select top acceptable and available options

Options Exhausted

Identify Gaps

Test candidateforces against

objective

Objective

Force Structure Assessment

Options Decision Matrix

CandidateForces by Capability

Perform for each Target Related Capability

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED31

Force Structure AssessmentRank Target-Related

Capabilities by difficulty

CandidateForce

Structure

Study distribution of forces assigned and identify

options assigned in excess of availability

Yes

Check foroptions assigned

in excess of availability

Hard Point Force StructureOption Platform Delivery

VehicleWarhead

Option ABC # Platform # DeliveryVehicles

# Warheads

Option LMN # Platform # DeliveryVehicles

# Warheads

Option XYZ # Platform # DeliveryVehicles

# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads


VehicleWarhead


# Warheads


# Warheads


# Warheads

Set of candidate forces by capability that satisfy capability objectives

Refill candidate preliminary force package

No

Allocate forces to capabilities

• Identify new gaps• Identify shortfalls in capability robustness

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED32

Illustrative Candidate Forces Build

Option DecisionMatrices

4

2571

HARD POINT

6

4781

MOBILE

4

5829

SOFT POINT

Forces Available#

HARD POINT

MOBILE

SOFT POINT

Option

# Option

# Option

300

150

220

4

2

5

125

250

6

4

300

300

250

150

4

5

8

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Objective670

Objective375

Objective1000

Candidate Force Package

Option1 2502 1503 1004 300

5 3006 125

7 …8 …9 …

• Prioritized options in each decision matrix

• Matrices ordered by target difficulty

Operational

Responsive

New Options

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED33

Illustrative Force Structure Assessment

#

HARD POINT

MOBILE

SOFT POINT

Option

# Option

# Option

200

100

300

4

2

5

125

100

6

4

250

50

8

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Adjusted candidate force package

• Option 4 highly valued in all forces– Delete from Soft Point– Allocate to other objectives

- 200 to Hard Point and 100 to Mobile

• Option 2 highly valued for Hard Point; required for some Soft Point– 50 allocated to Soft Point for WMD/Agent Defeat– 100 remain in Hard Point

• Option 5 valued for Soft but required for Hard Point– Allocate all to Hard Point

No candidate force packages meet objectives after allocation; return to Forces Development step to refill candidate force package

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED34

Illustrative Candidate Force Structure

#

HARD POINT

MOBILE

SOFT POINT

Option

# Option

# Option

200

100

300

70

4

2

5

7

125

100

150

6

4

7

600

50

350

8

2

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Final force package

No overlaps remain. Candidate Force Structure complete

• Refill Hard Point with 70 units of Option 7

Note: Options 8 and 9 could be new precision conventional options or low yield weapons

• Refill Mobile with 150 units of Option 7

• Refill Soft Point with a mix of Option 8 + 9

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED35

Force Structure Testing

FAIL

OPSITs,Objectives and


Test for:• Survivability• Reconstitution• Flexibility• Robustness• Deployability• New Triad

Diversity• Policy Goals

Acceptable force level

CandidateForce

Structure

Balanced

Force

PASS

FAIL

PASS

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED36

Conclusions• Valuable Capabilities-Based framework for long-range strategic force planning identified

in this proof of concept effort– Provides a clear and sound method for integration of offensive forces– Identifies approximate force structure size and appropriate force mix– Identifies deficiencies in meeting capability needs– Assesses options for closing/reducing capability gaps– Provides a means to develop a well hedged force with managed risk

• Methodological flexibility promotes straightforward examination of the sensitivity of results to input variations

– Worlds, OPSITS and target base data– Planning factors– Option-related factors/weights– Force structure tests

• Extension of the method to other New Triad force components feasible• New Triad Concept of Operations needed

Provides the basis for an “operationalized” analyticalprocess to guide evolution to the New Triad

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED37

• Implement and improve this process to aid in planning strike forces for the New Triad– Comprehensive treatment of strategic force options– Develop New Triad CONOPs– Intelligence Community validation of target data

• Broaden the process to allow periodic assessment of the implications of the evolution to reduced levels of operational nuclear weapons

• Integrate remaining strategic force elements in the method to produce a unifying framework for New Triad planning– Other offensive options (SOF and IO)– Strategic defense options– C4ISR and Adaptive Planning affect capability needs– Impact of infrastructure on capability needs

• Provide this brief to the strategic community and Joint Staff

Recommendations

Strategic community provide inputs to ASCO/CSN regarding requirementsfor follow-on efforts using this approach to Capabilities-Based Planning

Documents

Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning 15 July 2002 Capabilities Based Planning for the New Triad 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201