Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear Deterrence Planning

1
Alternative Futures Approach to Nuclear
Deterrence Planning
UNCLASSIFIED
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
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

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

• Fight from forward positions

• Rapid reconstitution/ upload

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
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

6
Scenario-Based PlanningAlternative 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 todays
  decision making

Today
20-30 years hence
A tool for ordering ones perceptions about
alternative future environments in which ones
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
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
Intelligence Estimates
Today
World I Target Base
Worlds
Iran
Russia
China
Iraq
WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting
Infra. Leadership




I
2012
World II Target Base
2007
III
Iran
Russia
China
Iraq
II
WMD Forces Conventional Forces War Supporting
Infra. Leadership




Target Bases by World
Today
World III Target Base
IntelligenceCommunityInput
Iran
Russia
China
Iraq
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




OPSIT 3 Iran
Political Constraints
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 II
World I
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 1
OPSIT 2
OPSIT 3
OPSIT 4
OPSIT 1
OPSIT 2
OPSIT 3
OPSIT 4
OPSIT 1
OPSIT 2
OPSIT 3
OPSIT 4
World I
World II
World III
But we dont plan against the worst case
18
Develop Planning Factors
Target coverage sufficient to credibly
deter/defeat accounted for with planning factors
19
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
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

• Assess Options Against Spectrum of
  Capabilities
• Soft Point
• Hard Point
• etc..

Adaptive Options Database
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
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
Assess Options Against Other Than Target-Related
Factors
Operational Factors
Rapid
Reliability
Range
Survivability
Roll-Up
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
lt100
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
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
Illustrative Force Structure Assessment
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

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
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