USA TODAY asked nuclear strategy experts for their suggestions about next steps for U.S. nuclear policy. Their responses offer competing road maps for how to keep America safe. Most of them are wary of the current trajectory of the Sentinel program, whether they want to see it accelerated, tweaked or canceled.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said lawmakers need to reconsider whether it makes sense to maintain 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as ICBMs, until 2075. He also questioned whether the United States needs them at all; he believes the country’s nuclear bombers and nuclear missile submarines are sufficient to deter enemy attacks.
A pair of nuclear researchers at the Federation of American Scientists, Matt Korda and Mackenzie Knight-Boyle, argued in a 2024 memo that the mandate for at least 400 missiles set by Congress is “arbitrary” and serves political interests. They say Congress should stop requiring a minimum number of missiles and instead let national security needs drive the scale of the Sentinel program.
Kyle Balzer, a nuclear weapons policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the country needs to “look at the reality of the situation and ensure that (Sentinel) … gets back on course, and we get 400 ICBMs.” But he sees 400 as a likely cap for silo-based missiles rather than as a floor – the United States has limited resources, and they can’t all go into nuclear missiles.
