US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile

The U.S. Navy has quietly removed the nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile from its inventory, a new Secretary of the Navy Instruction shows.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Although the U.S. Navy has yet to make a formal announcement that the nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N) has been retired, a new updated navy instruction shows that the weapon is gone.

The evidence comes not in the form of an explicit statement, but from what has been deleted from the U.S. Navy’s instruction Department of the Navy Nuclear Weapons Responsibilities and Authorities (SECNAVINST 8120.1A).

While the previous version of the instruction from 2010 included a whole sub-section describing TLAM/N responsibilities, the new version published on February 15, 2013, contains no mentioning of the TLAM/N at all and the previous sub-section has been deleted.

The U.S. Navy is finally out of the non-strategic nuclear weapons business. The stockpile has declined and a substantial number of TLAM/N warheads (W80-0) have already been dismantled. [Update 21 Mar: FY12 Pantex Performance Evaluation Report states (p.24): “All W80-0 warheads in the stockpile have been dismantled.” (Thanks Jay!)]. 

The End Of An Era

The retirement of the TLAM/N completes a 25-year process of eliminating all non-strategic naval nuclear weapons from the U.S. Navy’s arsenal.

In 1989, diligent researchers using the Freedom of Information Act discovered that the navy planned to unilaterally retire three of its non-strategic nuclear weapons.

Retirement of the TLAM/N comes two decades after the U.S. Navy retired the SUBROC, ASROC, and Terrier.

The first to go was the SUBROC, a submarine-launched rocket introduced in 1965 to deliver a 5-kiloton nuclear torpedo against another submarine. The SUBROC was widely deployed on attack submarines for 24 years and retired in 1989.

The ASROC was next in line, a ship-launched rocket introduced in 1961 to deliver a 10-kiloton depth bomb against submarines. The ASROC was widely deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and frigates for 29 years and retired in 1990.

The third non-strategic nuclear weapon to be unilaterally retired was the nuclear Terrier, a ship-launched surface-to-air missile introduced in 1961 to deliver a 1-kiloton warhead against aircraft. The nuclear Terrier was retired in 1990 after 29 years.

These weapons had little military value but huge political consequences when they sailed into ports of allied countries whose governments were forced to ignore violation of their own non-nuclear policies to avoid being seen as disloyal to their nuclear-armed ally.

The Regan administration planned to replace all of these weapons with new types: the SUBROC would be replaced by the Sea Lance rocket; the ASROC would be replaced with the Vertical ASROC; and the Terrier was to be replaced by the Standard 2 missile. But all of these replacement programs were cancelled. The Harpoon cruise missile was also intended to have a nuclear warhead option, but that was also canceled. Originally 758 TLAM/Ns were planned but only 350 were built, and 260 were left when the Obama administration decided to retire the weapon.

After the unilateral retirement of the SUBROC, ASROC, and Terrier missiles, the navy was left with B61 and B57 bombs on aircraft carriers and land-based anti-submarine aircraft, as well as the TLAM/N. Work initially continued on the B90 NSDB (nuclear strike and depth bomb) to replace the naval B61 and B57, but in September 1991 president George H.W. Bush unilaterally cancelled the program and ordered the offloading and withdrawal of all non-strategic nuclear weapons.

The Clinton administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review followed up by denuclearizing the entire surface fleet, leaving only TLAM/N for some of the navy’s attack submarines. The missiles were stored on land, however, and never made it back to sea.

In the early part of the George W. Bush administration, the navy wanted to retire the TLAM/N, but some officials in the National Security Council and the Office of the Secretary of Defense insisted that the weapon was needed for certain missions in defense of allied countries. As a result, the TLAM/N survived the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, and up through 2005 the navy continued to test launch the missile from attack submarines.

Some official and lobbyists tried to protect the TLAM/N during the 2009 Congressional Strategic Posture Commission process, but they failed. The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review determined that the TLAM/N should finally be retired because it was redundant.


More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, and tens of millions of dollars and countless of navy personnel hours wasted on retaining the TLAM/N, the weapon has finally been retired and the navy is out of the non-strategic nuclear weapons business altogether.

This is monumental achievement and marks the end of a long process. In 1987, the U.S. Navy possessed more than 3,700 non-strategic nuclear weapons for use by almost 240 nuclear-capable ships and attack submarines in nuclear battles on the high seas. Today the number is zero.

Submarine crews can finally focus on real-world operations without the burden of non-strategic nuclear weapons, and government officials from the United States and its Pacific allies can finally begin to think about how to structure extended deterrence without clinging to the Cold War illusion that it requires tactical naval nuclear weapons.

I only wish the Obama administration and its allies were not so timid about the achievement. The unilateral elimination of naval non-strategic nuclear weapons is an important milestone in U.S. nuclear weapons history that demonstrates that non-strategic nuclear weapons have lost their military and political value. Russia has partly followed the initiative by eliminating a third of its non-strategic naval nuclear weapons since 1991, but is holding on to the rest to compensate against superior U.S. conventional naval forces.

But why not propose to Russia that they follow the TLAM/N retirement by retiring their nuclear land-attack cruise missile, the SS-N-21, and stop building new ones? The land-attack cruise missiles have nothing to do with compensating for naval conventional inferiority. Highlighting the retirement of the TLAM/N, moreover, might even help undercut some of the North Korean Generals’ rhetoric about a U.S. nuclear threat. Milk the TLAM/N retirement for all it’s worth!

Documents: SECNAVINST 8120.1 (2010) | SECNAVINST 8120.1A (2013) | Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons (FAS, May 2012)

This publication was made possible by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

11 thoughts on “US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile

  1. How potentially beneficial in regard to the coming unfortunate conflict, “War with Iran”, would the Tomahawk have been?

    Reply: Not that I think there will be a war with Iran, but in a hypothetical war the nuclear Tomahawk would have been useless. Politically it would be enormously counterproductive to resort to nuclear use. Besides, the United States has plenty of non-nuclear hardware – including conventional Tomahawk missiles – that it has demonstrated repeatedly that it can and will use if necessary. HK

  2. Disarming (retiring) our U.S. NAVY nuclear TLAM/N hardware is like stepping into a “gun free” zone. It may make a liberal “feel good”, but it does nothing to make you safer in a world filled by mad men.

  3. Excellent article, but according to Jane’s, the TLAM-N is no longer in service on board any surface or submarine asset.

    1. I know. We have reported for years that the navy has stored the weapon on land since 1992 with an option to redeploy if necessary. What is new is that the TLAM/N has been removed from the navy’s inventory permanently, operational documents updated to reflect that change, and the W80-0 warheads dismantled.

  4. It’s a good thing Russia and China followed our example and removed all of their non-strategic nuclear warheads form their fleets. Oh wait, no they didn’t. This kind of naivette will be our undoing.

  5. The result of retiring our most potent theater weapons (non-strategic Nuclear) has resulted in the aggressive invasioins in eastern Europe by Russia and the Aggressive territorial claims, against international law by China in the south china sea. Remember speak softly but carry a big stick.

    These regimes believe in one thing, take what you can get away with. If there is nothing to fear why not? You can have a large Navy to project your power but if you take away the power in the Navy, what do you really have? An expensive Navy with no teeth that no one fears.

  6. A salvo of 59 Tomahawk “specials” (TLAM/N) would make quick work of the North Korean artillery currently massed against 30 million innocent civilians in the Seoul metro area.

    1. Time to reactivate our GLCM program and retrofit tomahawks with nuclear warheads again. Moreover, we could also use a salvo of 100++ TLAM-C’s to blow up North Korea’s ICBMs right on the ground BEFORE they have a chance to launch them in a counterstrike.

  7. It’s interesting to read five years later Russia is arming basically small drone submarines with 100 megaton warheads in a bid to go under the ABM umbrellas that have been setup in recent years.

    Nonetheless the west’s need for such tactical nukes is rapidly evaporating. Why?

    Tactical nuclear weapons were designed entirely to offset the Soviet Union’s massive numerical advantage.

    Today that numercial (along with the technological) advantage has passed to the west. If you count the number of combat aircraft alone NATO, European (non-NATO aligned), US, Canada, Japan, Australia, Singapore and several nations wield at least a 10:1 numerical advantage in operational aircraft (not hangar queens).

    With ground forces the west is able to field a far better trained and larger force (we’re talking almost several hundred thousand more than Russia) then what Russia could present (even with it activating reserve units). Main battle tanks are also fairly even when you discount the thousands of rusting unupdated T-72s the Russians hold in storage.

    Finally Russian Naval forces are ridiculously outnumbered. A large part of its fleet is rusty away and is incapable of sustaining high tempo operations (aka war). Its submarine fleet though large is severely outnumbered by what the west can field. Whilst technologically Europe alone, if it got off its ass and actually put money into maintenance, their fleets so far advanced of 80% of the Russian fleet that it wouldn’t even be fair.

    Finally even if you threw China into the mix at best this would come down to 5:1 in Aircraft, naval wise the fleets would be outnumbered by a over a million tons and soldier wise i doubt most of the Chinese formations are worth the ink they’re described with.

    Now is Putin a bad guy. For sure. He is a KGB officer who has become a godfather of all Russian crime families and groups. He is by far the richest man in the world.

    However if a sane and proper man ruled Russia they would still be responding in the sameway. Russia saw the loss of the Ukraine, a state that is in someways very similar to how the US is to Canada. With the Ukraines move to the EU and NATO how long will it be before the US can place strategic and tactical nuclear weapons literally in Russia’s backyard.

    Russia is being backed into a corner and is being forced to develop new tactical & strategic nuclear weapons. It’s GDP, rapidly shrinking, is smaller then Australia for godsake. It no longer has the industrial or economic base to create the uber massive formations that we saw in the cold war.

    The west no longer needs these weapons. Indeed with Spacex’s huge technological advance, decreasing space access by a factor of 100 or more, the ability to simply orbit clouds of guidance mounted tungsten rods which could be dropped onto enemies below, would give such an advantage to the west that it no longer needs such primitive and wasteful weapons.

    1. Your analysis would make perfect sense if Vladimir Putin, Xi Jin Ping and Kim Young Un had never come to power. But they DID come to power. And their massive weapons development programs are in the process of leapfrogging what you call “the West” in terms of speed, range, precision and payload. All while quietly closing the gap on stealth and stealth detection.

      Their militaries are being optimized to create rapid irreversible regional fait a complies in which the fighting would be over before what you call “The West ” would have time or political will to reinforce.

      Russia right now could take the Baltics plus a diagonally sliced half of Ukraine, with NATO capitals held at risk, and NATO forces thereby held at bay, by Iskander missiles in already in place in Kaliningrad. And US reinforcements couldn’t get nearly close enough nearly fast enough.

      Unfortunately, obsolete views like yours still prevail in Washington. Which is exactly why China is going to end up dominating everything from the international dateline to the middle east, while Russia carves up everything from the middle east to the Greenwich meridian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *