Bold Global Security Policy for 2025 and Beyond
Americans increasingly have to grapple with the impacts of numerous global risks like nuclear weapons, pandemics, and natural disasters. The threat of nuclear weapons is rising as nuclear weapons states increase their arsenals’ numbers and role in national security, COVID-19 revealed a significant lack of biorisk preparedness by the federal government, and more communities are being devastated by hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and other disasters due to climate change, aging infrastructure, risky developments, and other factors. These challenges must be addressed to ensure human safety and stability.
Recognizing these issues, FAS’ Global Risk portfolio has developed a set of new policy recommendations via actionable memos to help inform and guide Congress and the Executive Branch to enhance disaster and biorisk preparedness, to improve oversight of nuclear weapons-related programs, and to reduce nuclear risk.
Pandemic and disaster preparedness
Preparation for disasters–health or environmental–is one area in need of immediate action by the federal government to ensure that adequate infrastructure and resources are in place to mitigate damage and save lives. To avoid another pandemic as destructive and fatal as COVID-19, the federal government must enact policy solutions in advance of the next pandemic. Similarly, as the effects of climate change become more numerous and extreme, the government needs to bolster its disaster response capacity to prevent natural hazards like wildfires and floods from becoming billion-dollar disasters.
Eliminate Billion-Dollar Disasters: Equitable Science-Based Disaster Policy for a Resilient Future by Allison C. Reilly, PhD; A. R. Siders, JD, PhD; Deb Niemeier, PhD
Disaster effects continue to worsen, and serious disasters are more frequent and more costly. Climate change is exacerbating hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and wildfires, but U.S. disaster policy emphasizes recovery rather than prevention. Overhauling U.S. disaster policy to limit increasing disaster costs will require a major effort across multiple levels and branches of government, including an executive order from the President to direct agencies to address climate change and social equity in all federal actions and mandate inter-agency task forces, legislation from Congress to reform existing legislation and improve incentives for spending on disaster resilience, and allocated funding for new scientific studies.
Protecting US Critical Infrastructure with Resilience Caches of Reusable Respirators by Aman Patel
The next pandemic could strike at any time, and our PPE supply chain is not ready. Experts predict that the chance of a severe natural epidemic could perhaps triple in the next few decades, and as the world witnessed in 2020, disposable PPE can quickly become scarce in a crisis. To help protect U.S. critical infrastructure workers from future pandemics and other biological threats, the next presidential administration should use the federal government’s grantmaking power to ensure ample supplies of high-quality respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE).
Reducing wasteful nuclear spending
The United States is carrying out a massive overhaul of its nuclear arsenal, including modernization programs and new developments. Over the next three decades, the U.S. government will spend over one trillion dollars on this effort. Some of this spending, however, is unnecessary for preserving the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The government can take steps to reduce wasteful spending of taxpayer money by reexamining its plans and policies for the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program.
Saving Billions on the US Nuclear Deterrent by Matt Korda and Mackenzie Knight
For over a decade, the United States Air Force has planned to replace its current arsenal of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with an entirely new missile force known as the Sentinel. Unfortunately, the Sentinel program is riddled with challenges and flawed assumptions that have significantly increased both its cost and risk, drawing funding away from more urgent priorities. The next administration should revise its nuclear employment guidance to accept a slightly higher threshold for risk with regard to its ICBM force to reduce the need to pursue Sentinel immediately. Additionally, the administration should launch a National Security Council-led review of the role of ICBMs in U.S. nuclear strategy.
Removing Arbitrary Deployment Quotas for Nuclear Force Posture by Matt Korda and Mackenzie Knight
Congressional offices that represent the districts where US ICBMs are located work together on a bipartisan basis to advocate for the indefinite sustainment of their ICBM bases. This “Senate ICBM Coalition” has played an outsized role over the past two decades in dictating U.S. nuclear force posture for primarily parochial reasons, thus inhibiting progress on adapting the U.S. ICBM force to a new geostrategic environment, restricting military planners to a force structure based on status quo rather than strategic requirements, and increasing costs for taxpayers by requiring the development and sustainment of more ICBMs than are necessary. Congress should ensure that no amendments dictating the size of the ICBM force are included in future NDAAs. If such amendments are included, they should be based on strategic needs established by presidential and Defense Department guidance documents.
Checks and balances and risk reduction
Transparency and oversight of nuclear-weapons related actions by the U.S. government is needed to mitigate harm caused by nuclear weapons and their development. Additionally, the government should take action to prevent nuclear weapons-related actions like ballistic missile tests and explosive nuclear weapons testing from escalating tensions with adversaries and heightening the risk of nuclear war.
Coming soon: Pursuing A Missile Pre-Launch Notification Agreement with China as a Risk Reduction Measure by Allie Maloney
Introducing Certification of Technical Necessity for Resumption of Nuclear Explosive Testing by Allie Maloney
The United States currently observes a voluntary moratorium on explosive nuclear weapons testing, but the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is required by law to maintain the capability to conduct an underground nuclear explosive test at the Nevada National Security Site, if directed to do so by the U.S. president. Restarting U.S. nuclear weapons testing could open the door for other nuclear weapons states to do the same and would have long-lasting radiological effects on the environment. Despite these downsides, a future president has the legal authority—for political or other reasons—to order a resumption of nuclear testing. Ensuring any such decision is more democratic and subject to a broader system of political accountability could be achieved by creating a more integrated approval process, based on scientific or security needs
Reforming Nuclear Research Practices in the Marshall Islands by Rujuta Pandit
In the mid-20th century, the United States test-detonated dozens of nuclear weapons in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), which harmed human health, fomented distrust in research sponsored by the U.S. government, and fueled tensions with the Marshallese. Fallout from the tests undermined U.S. influence in the Pacific, cooperation over ecological restoration, and the reputation of the U.S. research enterprise. To build back relations with the RMI (and other allies that have long supported the United States), the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Interior (DOI) should adopt provisions for conducting nuclear research with and in the Marshall Islands to increase transparency and trust and elevate Marshallese voices in the fight for preservation of their lands.
Conclusion
Everyday, the threat of nuclear weapons, pandemics, and natural disasters loom over Americans and the rest of the global community. These memos from the Day One 2025 Global Risk effort provide numerous actionable policy recommendations for the next presidential administration to address these threats. By engaging with the recommendations laid out in this report, the US government can mitigate damage to Americans and the environment, save taxpayers money, enhance oversight, and reduce the risk of nuclear use.