Trump’s pick for next US defence secretary has questioned need for US’s ICBMs, which are ready to launch within minutes in event of an attack

James Mattis, the retired general Donald Trump has chosen to be the next US defence secretary, has questioned the need for land-based nuclear missiles on the grounds they represent a higher risk than other weapons of being launched on a false alarm.

Mattis raised doubts about US nuclear orthodoxy in a statement to Congress in 2015, raising the issue over whether nuclear deterrence should continue to rest on a “triad” of weapon types: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles and warheads carried by air force bombers. During the campaign, Trump vowed to proceed with current plans to modernise all three legs of the triad, with an estimated price tag of half a trillion dollars over 20 years.

Donald Trump announces James 'Mad Dog' Mattis as secretary of defense Read more

In his remarks to the Senate about US national security priorities, Mattis struck a more sceptical tone. He asked whether the US should declare that the sole purpose of its nuclear arsenal was to deter nuclear attack, a statement that would narrow its purpose and potentially lower the number of warheads required. The present US nuclear posture states that, in some circumstances, the current, 4,500-warhead arsenal has a role in deterring conventional or chemical weapon attack.

“The nuclear stockpile must be tended to and fundamental questions must be asked and answered,” Mattis told the Senate armed services committee. “We must clearly establish the role of our nuclear weapons: do they serve solely to deter nuclear war? If so we should say so, and the resulting clarity will help to determine the number we need.”

“Is it time to reduce the triad to a diad, removing the land‐based missiles? This would reduce the false alarm danger,” Mattis said.

The US has about 400 ICBMs on a “hair-trigger alert”, ready to launch within minutes if early warning systems show an incoming attack. Several former defence secretaries and generals have argued that they should be taken off this state of readiness because of the danger of false alarms, especially in the age of cyber warfare. Some former officials, including William Perry, defence secretary in the Clinton administration, have argued ICBMs should be scrapped altogether.

Perry said he knew Mattis well, having worked for the marine, then a colonel, for three years during Perry’s time at the Pentagon. The two have since taken part in conferences and panel discussions on nuclear weapons and defence.

“He’s very intelligent, a very serious thinker, nothing frivolous at all about him,” Perry told the Guardian. “My view of him is that he will be a solid addition to Trump’s team. He brings an experience in defence and national security that is lacking.”

“More importantly,” Perry said, “he is a man who says what he thinks. He’s not easily intimidated. He is known for speaking truth to power and that will be a great asset in this administration.”

Perry added that, during conversations he had had with Mattis and George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, the marine general showed a deep understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons. “I would not expect him to be recommending anything rash with nuclear weapons,” Perry said.

“His views on a number of issues are certainly more hawkish than mine but I don’t think he’s over the top on any issue that I’m aware of,” the former secretary of defence said. He added that he did not expect Mattis would seek to torpedo last year’s multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, in which Tehran agreed to significant curbs on its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.

“While he’s said to be hawkish on Iran, I do not believe he favours scrapping the agreement,” Perry said.

Mattis has voiced deep scepticism about Iran’s motives and warned that the US and its allies would have to remain vigilant for violations. But in April he argued against walking away from the nuclear deal, as Trump has threatened to do.



“One point I want to make is there’s no going back,” Mattis said at an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Absent a real violation – I mean, a clear and present violation that was enough to stimulate the Europeans to action as well – I don’t think that we can.”

Were the US to renege on its agreement, Mattis said, “I believe we would be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have anywhere near the impact of an allied approach to this.”

Mattis’s views on the right size of the US nuclear arsenal are likely to become relevant early in a Trump administration. Key decisions to pursue the comprehensive modernisation plan envisaged by the Obama administration would have to be taken within months, and expenditure would peak in the 2020s. The Trump White House will have to consider whether the US can afford simultaneous nuclear upgrades and an expansion of conventional military forces, as the president-elect has promised – all while cutting taxes.

“Candidate Trump basically said we are going to do it all,” Perry said. “I imagine that will be rethought, reconsidered.”

Generals would have an open mind toward nuclear weapon adjustments depending on the cost to their conventional forces, he said.

“If it turns out that Trump is willing to write the defence department a blank cheque – if the generals see the nuclear weapons as coming for free and not at the cost of conventional weapons – then they will support them. But if they see that in order to proceed with this programme, they are going to have cut back on some of the things they want, all the things that are really dear to their hearts, then it will be a different issue.”