Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Inhofe
Today, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned General Anthony J. Cotton, USAF, nominee for reappointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command.
Click here to view Inhofe’s remarks.
Inhofe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have three questions, and while you have addressed all three of these I will give you the chance to elaborate a little bit more, if that’s your desire. General Cotton, we all know how critical it is that we rebuild our nation’s nuclear deterrent, but we’re still years away from fielding any new systems. In terms of your priorities, how important is it that we accelerate as much of the U.S. nuclear modernization plan as possible?
Cotton: Senator, thank you for the question. I think about it this way, if confirmed I think the challenge of strategic command is to ensure that we sustain legacy system as we transition to the modernized system. That’s going to be key for us. In order to do that, it’s going to take the full power of government to be able to pull that together. Especially when we’re talking about the sentinel weapons system, and Columbia, and all the five that I have under my purview as a current Joint Forces Air Component Commander working for the Commander of STRATCOM. Being able to do that, sir, I think a couple of key things are going to be required from us. We are going to need stable, predictable, and adequate and timely funding. My job if confirmed as a commander of STRATCOM is to ensure that we also have stable requirements because what we’re going to see, and what I think is going to be great for us with the new modernized systems, is the fact that were by design building in a system that we know will last for decades because that’s built into the system. The modularity that we will see will be able to keep pace with the threats that we will see in the future. What we need to do in the meantime though, is sustain the legacy system that is still safe, secure and effective as we make that transition.
Inhofe: That’s good, and I appreciate that very much. It’s already been mentioned a couple times, talking about the two peer adversaries, this is something that we have not done before. This is new. Even though you did already address this, you’ve been asked this question even by the Chairman. I’d like to give you the opportunity to expand, if you want to, on how we are going to handle this. What’s going to be different about two adversaries?
Cotton: Thank you, Senator. What’s different, is two near peers that actually act differently from a doctrine’s perspective. We understand Russian nuclear theory and nuclear doctrine, minimal deterrence is what we thought of when we talked of China, as recent as 2018. We have seen the incredible expansiveness of what they’re doing with their nuclear force, which does not, in my opinion, reflect minimal deterrence. They have a bonafide triad now. We’re going to have to understand, more deeply, the Chinese nuclear strategy.
Inhofe: Alright, I appreciate that. Now the Chairman did talk about this before, I am going to frame the question as my last question a little bit differently, General Cotton. A number of senior military officers have testified to their support for continuing the sea-launched cruise missile program, including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commanders of U.S. Strategic and European Commands. Do you agree with these leaders and your colleagues that we should keep this program going? I’d like you to be as specific as possible, because we all know what the program is and we’ve all expressed ourselves on it, so I’d like to have your thoughts on this.
Cotton: Yes, Senator. So, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the current commander of the US Strategic Command absolutely understand where they are on the endorsement of continuing.
Inhofe: That’s correct.
Cotton: From my perspective, I absolutely understand that they’re looking at the capability gap to be able to do that. The only thing that’s different between they and I, is I have yet to do an assessment on the weapons system itself. I absolutely understand where they are on being able to have a capability gap that is filled that they have seen. I have seen that capability gap as well, and I endorse the fact that we need to fill that capability gap.
Inhofe: Thank you, General.