Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commander addresses nuclear deterrence questions: New START compliance, DPRK, and weapons in space
Loading...
Summary
Major General Jason Armaghust said his command is compliant with New START and outlined how U.S. forces plan for a range of nuclear contingencies, while warning about destabilizing technologies such as placing nuclear weapons in space or capabilities that undermine warning systems.
Major General Jason Armaghust told reporters the Joint Global Strike Operations Center and associated bomber forces remain compliant with the New START treaty and continue to plan for a range of nuclear contingencies.
"We've been compliant and remain compliant with NewSTART," Armaghust said, adding that political decisions about the future form of an agreement are for policymakers. He said military planning considers competition, crisis and conflict scenarios and that the command studies other states' weapons capabilities closely to present appropriate capabilities to combatant commanders.
On concerns about North Korea and regional nuclear risks, Armaghust said historical focus on the Korean Peninsula and observable weapons developments remain central to planning. "We pay very close attention to all of that," he said. He also stated that an Iranian nuclear capability would "complicate immensely" the nuclear aspects of competition in the Middle East.
Asked about the prospect of placing nuclear weapons in space, Armaghust said such a step would be "militarily very problematic" and destabilizing because it could degrade nuclear command-and-control and reduce decision time. "I would think anyone who would do that would understand exactly what that meant," he said.
Armaghust also discussed New START compliance and current posture: "We have been compliant with the treaty. We are remaining compliant with the treaty as it's in effect right now," and he said further political negotiations will determine any successor arrangements.
He did not announce changes to posture or policy and repeatedly framed treaty and political decisions as the responsibility of policymakers rather than his command.
