1 / 37

Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning

This report details a capabilities-based approach for developing integrated strategic strike planning recommendations, focusing on alternative future scenarios and operational situations. The study method, Worlds and OPSITs, requirements generation, and adaptive options database are explored to provide strategic force continuum planning guidelines. Recommendations for method use are also highlighted, aligning with defense policy goals and the New Triad concept.

gmcclure
Download Presentation

Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNCLASSIFIED Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning Capabilities Based Planning for the New Triad 15 July 2002 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201Fort Belvoir, VA. 22060-6201 UNCLASSIFIED

  2. Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Worlds and Operational Situations Requirements Generation Adaptive Options Database Force Structure Guidelines Conclusions and Recommendations Attachments Appendices Acronyms

  3. 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 Purpose

  4. Context DPG QDR NPR Policy Goals Assure Dissuade Defeat Deter New Triad Offense (Nuclear, Non-Nuclear SOF, Info Ops) C4ISR Adaptive Planning Infrastructure (Long-Term, Responsive) Defenses (Active, Passive) Continuum of Capabilities • Selective, tailored options • Swift, decisive defeat • Depth, breadth of targeting • Non-nuclear strike • Rapid reconstitution/ upload • Fight from forward positions Capabilities-Based Planning Hedge against uncertainty, surprise Long-term horizon; risk management Define and implement as practical planning tool Framework for the Strategic Force Continuum

  5. 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 Capabilities-Based Planning

  6. I III II Scenario-Based Planning:Alternative Future Worlds Approach Worlds • 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 Today ~ 20-30 years hence “A tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative future environments in which one’s decisions might be played out.” Peter Schwartz, Art of the Long View

  7. Study Methodology Inputs 2020 Alternative Worlds Operational Situations R E Q U I R E M E N T S T R A D E O F F A N A L Y S I S Assume NPR Offensive Force Capabilities Adaptive Options Database Options for Modernizing and Augmenting U.S. Offensive Forces Threat + Target Base 2020 Force Structure Recommendations

  8. Worlds and OPSITs 2020 Alternative Worlds Operational Situations Inputs R E Q U I R E M E N T S T R A D E O F F A N A L Y S I S Assume NPR Offensive Force Capabilities Adaptive Options Database Options for Modernizing and Augmenting U.S. Offensive Forces Threat + Target Base 2020 Force Structure Recommendations

  9. Developing the Futures Framework OPSITs More Benign Worlds 1 2 3 Different Targets 4 RequirementsGenerationProcess I 1 III 2 Different Geographies II 3 4 Today Different Constraints 1 2 3 4 2020 More Stressful Representative Spectrum of Targets, Geographies,and Constraints for Force Planners

  10. Alternative Worlds World I: Global Consensus - Rogues and non-state actors challenge • Key Variables • International System • International organizations • Treaty regimes • Key adversaries • Intentions • Capabilities • Health of global economy • Broad growth • Flat growth • Recession Worlds were developed for this study by varying the following factors consistently and within plausible bounds: World II: Great Power Conflict - Peer competitors challenge Uncertain World World III: Global Disorder - Multi-polar challenges

  11. Operational Situations* World I Global Consensus 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 World II GreatPowerConflict 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 World III GlobalDisorder 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 OPSITs reflect world in which they occur * Representative situations are not derived from current operational planning

  12. Requirements Generation R E Q U I R E M E N T S Inputs 2020 Alternative Worlds Operational Situations T R A D E O F F A N A L Y S I S Assume NPR Offensive Force Capabilities Adaptive Options Database Options for Modernizing and Augmenting U.S. Offensive Forces Threat + Target Base 2020 Force Structure Recommendations

  13. Requirements Methodology Summarize preliminary Requirements across OPSITs by capability Extrapolate current and projected target data Worlds and OPSITs Assign target packages for each OPSIT Use planning factors to develop objectives for each capability Identify strategic strike capabilities Tie OPSIT targets to required capabilities Use resulting ObjectivesMatrix in Force StructureDevelopment

  14. Potential Geographies Identifying Required Strategic Capabilities Range of Potential Target Types Capabilities Target Related Potential Political Constraints Soft Strategic Infrastructure 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) Time Urgent WMD ICBMs • Country Restrictions • Measured Response Major Economic Target Mobile ICBMs Others Political Constraints Avoid Overflight (OF) Limit Collateral Damage (CD) Potential Operational Guidance Targeting Conditions Prompt 1 (P1) Prompt 2 (P2) Chem/Bio Agent Defeat (AD) Penetrate (Pen) • Damage Limitations • Full Dimensional Protection • Overcome Defense

  15. Deriving Target Bases for Each World ICBM Silos: Iraq 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 World I World II World III Max Extrapolations 2002/2007/2012 Target Base Adversaries Illustrative Data Russia China Iraq Iran WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### Target Cats. Linear Regression Illustrative Curve Extrapolations Min 2007 2012 2020 2002 Data Points Extrapolations Today Intelligence Estimates World I Target Base Worlds Russia China Iraq Iran WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### I 2012 World II Target Base 2007 III Russia China Iraq Iran II WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### Target Bases by World Today World III Target Base IntelligenceCommunityInput Russia China Iraq Iran WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### 2020

  16. Translating Targets to Capabilities World II, OPSIT 2 Assign target types to capabilities and relate pertinent targeting conditions and political constraints by adversary and selected mission Capabilities Numerical Target Related Assign Target Packagesfor Each OPSIT World I Target Base Soft 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 # # # # # # # Iraq Sudan Libya Pak WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### OPSIT 1: Russia OPSIT 2: DPRK World II Target Base Russia DPRK Arg Iraq WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### Political Constraints OPSIT 3: Iran Associate with Target- Related Capabilities by OPSIT Avoid Overflight Limit Collateral Damage OPSIT 4: Iraq World III Target Base Targeting Conditions Egypt Russia China Iran Prompt 1 Prompt 2 Chem/Bio Agent Defeat Penetrate Broad categories to be targeted are specified within each OPSIT WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting Infra. Leadership #### #### #### #### Develop OPSIT-Based Preliminary Capability Requirement

  17. Summarize Preliminary Requirements World I World II Capabilities World III Target Related Illustrative Data Soft Point Target Kill 674 700 Russia 267 199 193 171 Russia 127 112 107 91 Libya Sudan Argentina 53 China 66 Iraq 4 Iran Iraq DPRK Pakistan Egypt 0 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 4 World I World II World III …But we don’t plan against the worst case

  18. Adversary Intent Develop Planning Factors Target coverage sufficient to credibly deter/defeat accounted for with planning factors

  19. Soft Point Target Kill 700 674 Russia Adversary Intent Illustrative Data 267 199 193 Russia 171 127 112 107 91 Libya Sudan China 66 53 Iraq Argentina Iran DPRK 4 Iraq Egypt Pakistan 0 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 World I World II World III 700 370 Illustrative Data 150 Russia 130 90 90 55 60 62 40 Libya 55 Sudan Iraq China DPRK Pakistan 30 Iran Iraq Argentina Russia 2 Egypt 0 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 4 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 OPSIT 1 OPSIT 2 OPSIT 3 World I World II World III Applying Planning Factors Preliminary Requirements Apply Planning Factors Planning Factors Soft Point Target Kill Final Requirements Capability objective defined by most challenging OPSIT after application of planning factors

  20. Deriving Objectivesfor Conditions/Constraints 700 Soft-Point Target Kill Illustrative Data 370 150 Russia 130 90 90 55 60 62 40 Libya 55 Sudan Iraq China DPRK Pakistan 30 Iran Iraq Argentina Russia 2 Egypt 0 Hard Point Target Kill Hard Area Target Kill Soft Area Target Kill Shallow Buried Target Kill Deep Underground Target Kill Mobile Target Kill Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight Avoid Overflight 150 250 Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight 199 130 250 Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight 199 Libya 193 Sudan 250 Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight 199 Libya 193 Sudan 250 Soft-Point Target Kill: Avoid Overflight 199 127 90 China Libya 193 Sudan 250 90 199 127 171 171 Libya 193 60 China 55 Iraq 55 Sudan 107 127 30 107 Iraq Libya 193 127 40 China Iraq Iraq Libya Iraq Argentina 91 Sudan Iran Iraq Iraq Iraq DPRK 91 Sudan 91 Russia Russia 66 107 66 107 DPRK DPRK 2 127 Limit Collateral Damage 53 Egypt 53 0 Egypt 0 Iraq Pakistan Pakistan Argentina Iraq 91 Russia 66 107 Penetrate Prompt 1 Prompt 2 Chem-Bio Agent Defeat Final Requirements Associated Conditions/Constraints: Soft-Point Target Kill Illustrative Data Associated conditions and constraints produceother drivers for trade-off analysis

  21. Objectives Matrix PoliticalConstraints Targeting Conditions Illustrative Data Target Related Summary requirements for developing2020 strategic force composition

  22. Adaptive Options Database Inputs 2020 Alternative Worlds Operational Situations R E Q U I R E M E N T S T R A D E O F F A N A L Y S I S Assume NPR Offensive Force Adaptive Options Database Capabilities Options for Modernizing and Augmenting U.S. Offensive Forces Threat + Target Base 2020 Force Structure Recommendations

  23. Adaptive Options Database OperationalForces* Capabilities AcquisitionFactors ResponsiveForces* Political Factors NewOptions AdaptiveOptions Database Operational Factors Platform/delivery/warhead options related to capability and characterized by various factors. * Operational and Responsive Forces as outlined in 2001 Nuclear Posture Review

  24. Force Structure Guidelines T R A D E O F F A N A L Y S I S Inputs 2020 Alternative Worlds OPSITS R E Q U I R E M E N T S Assume NPR Offensive Force Capabilities Adaptive Options Database Options for Modernizing and Augmenting U.S. Offensive Forces Threat + Target Base 2020 Force Structure Recommendations

  25. Developing Force StructureRecommendations Adaptive Options Database • Assess Options Against Spectrum of Capabilities • Soft Point • Hard Point • etc….. Option Decision Matrices Objectives • Assess Related Acquisition Factors • Cost • Time • Technical Feasibility • Trade-Off Analysis • Evaluate and Prioritize Options Inputs • Assess Related • Political Factors • Domestic Reaction • International Reaction • Forces Development • By Target-Related Capability • Assess Related • Operational Factors • Reliability • Range • Rapid Retargetability • Survivability • Force Structure • Assessment and Testing • Iterate Considering Force Level Issues

  26. Performance Measure No (N) Partial (P) Yes (Y) Assess Options Against Targeting Objectives Risk weight assigned to account for downside impact of not having options able to meet conditions/constraints Adaptive Options Database Objectives Conditions/Constraints Coverage Index: Inputs Outstanding Good Sufficient Marginal Poor Options Capabilities Roll-Up

  27. Option/Capabilities Summary Target-Related Capabilities Capabilities Coverage Index: Options Assessed Against Objectives Outstanding Good Sufficient Marginal Poor Display relative performance of each option for each capability

  28. Domestic International Roll-Up Reaction Reaction Option 1 Option 2 Option N Assess Options Against Other Than Target-Related Factors Operational Factors Rapid Roll-Up Reliability Range Survivability Retargetability Outstanding Good Option 1 Sufficient Poor Option Marginal 2 Poor Unacceptable Option N Political Factors Seven Option Decision Matrices Least provocative More provocative Provocative Very Provocative Most Provocative Most Provocative Assessment of characterizing factors to limit range of decision-making variables

  29. Prioritize Options Hard Point Options Decision Matrix Options/Capabilities Summary Options Decision: Outstanding Good Sufficient Marginal Poor • 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 factors • Conclusion • Option 1 is top priority for Hard Point Target

  30. Forces Development Start Identify Gaps Options Decision Matrix Options Exhausted <100% Select top acceptable and available options Objective Test candidateforces against objective CandidateForces by Capability 100% Force Structure Assessment Objective Filled Perform for each Target Related Capability

  31. Force Structure Assessment Rank Target-Related Capabilities by difficulty Study distribution of forces assigned and identify options assigned in excess of availability Set of candidate forces by capability that satisfy capability objectives Allocate forces to capabilities Yes Check foroptions assignedin excess of availability CandidateForceStructure No • Identify new gaps • Identify shortfalls in capability robustness Refill candidate preliminary force package

  32. Option Decision Matrices Illustrative Candidate Forces Build Forces Available HARD POINT HARD POINT Objective 670 4 # Option Option 2 300 150 220 - - - 4 2 5 1 250 2 150 3 100 4 300 5 7 Operational 1 MOBILE MOBILE Objective 375 6 # Option 5 300 6 125 4 Responsive 125 250 - - 6 4 7 8 7 … 8 … 9 … 1 New Options SOFT POINT SOFT POINT Objective 1000 4 # Option • Prioritized options in each decision matrix • Matrices ordered by target difficulty 5 300 300 250 150 - - - - 4 5 8 2 8 2 9 Candidate Force Package

  33. 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 Illustrative Force Structure Assessment Adjusted candidate force package HARD POINT # Option 200 100 300 - - - 4 2 5 MOBILE # Option 125 100 - - 6 4 SOFT POINT # Option 250 50 - - 8 2 No candidate force packages meet objectives after allocation; return to Forces Development step to refill candidate force package

  34. Illustrative Candidate Force Structure Final force package • Refill Hard Point with 70 units of Option 7 HARD POINT # Option 200 100 300 70 - - - - 4 2 5 7 • Refill Mobile with 150 units of Option 7 MOBILE # Option 125 100 150 - - - 6 4 7 • Refill Soft Point with a mix of Option 8 + 9 SOFT POINT # Option 600 50 350 - - - 8 2 9 Note: Options 8 and 9 could be new precision conventional options or low yield weapons No overlaps remain. Candidate Force Structure complete

  35. Test for: • Survivability • Reconstitution • Flexibility • Robustness • Deployability • New TriadDiversity • Policy Goals Force Structure Testing CandidateForceStructure PASS FAIL OPSITs, Objectives and Conditions/ Constraints BalancedForce FAIL PASS Acceptable force level

  36. 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” analytical process to guide evolution to the New Triad

  37. Recommendations • 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 Strategic community provide inputs to ASCO/CSN regarding requirements for follow-on efforts using this approach to Capabilities-Based Planning

More Related