Navy Pushing Billions for Sea-based Nukes that Nobody Seems to Want

[PAF]

Long deemed unnecessary, the re-upped SLCM-N venture could cost taxpayers — and national security — big time

Stavroula Pabst
May 22, 2025


Sea-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, or SLCM-Ns, were considered unnecessary for U.S. national security for years. But now, the Navy’s pushing to bring SLCM-Ns back — even if doing so costs taxpayers billions.

Indeed, U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe told House Armed Services Committee members on May 7 that the Navy was fast tracking the development of the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile - Nuclear, known as the SLCM-N, along with the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System and hypersonic missiles.

.
.

How SLCM-Ns came out of retirement​

Initially proposed by the first Trump administration in 2018, SLCM-Ns mark the return to the realm of nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles — despite policymakers’ repeated gripes that the program was ultimately unnecessary for national security.

.
.

“The nuclear-armed sea-launched nuclear cruise missile is especially destabilizing because an adversary would have a hard time telling a nuclear armed one from the non-nuclear missile, making an accidental nuclear exchange more likely,” the Quincy Institute’s William Hartung told RS.

“This is a big deal, and [a] major reversal for the Navy, which for years said it did not want nor need this weapon,” Geoff Wilson, Distinguished Fellow and Strategic Advisor for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, explained.

.
.

Article continues:

Navy pushing billions for sea-based nukes that nobody seems to want

Long deemed unnecessary, the re-upped SLCM-N venture could cost taxpayers — and national security — big time

responsiblestatecraft.org

 

[Voluntarist]

Navy pushing billions for sea-based nukes that nobody seems to want​

It's a shame that XNavyNuke isn't posting any more; he'd be the guy to weigh in on this.

My take is that the only realistic, 21st century, deterrent remaining in the so-called nuclear triad are the sea-based assets (unless you're targeting North Korea or Iran). But the US is till funding the other two to the tune of billions and billions of dollars:
The Air Force's New Nuclear Missile System Will Now Cost $131.5 Billion
Cost of 100 B-21's to exceed $700 million per bomber

From the article:

Indeed, U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe told House Armed Services Committee members on May 7 that the Navy was fast tracking the development of the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile - Nuclear, known as the SLCM-N, along with the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System and hypersonic missiles.

Of those three, the submarine-launched Trident (primarily) and the sub-launched hyper-sonic missiles (ehhh, maybe) still have some value. Sub-launched cruise missiles just don't have the range unless your objective is North Korea or possibly Iran.

 

[unknown]

Let's skip the theatrics.

Just launder the money and send it to Izrael already.

 

[nikcers]

They weren't unnecessary they were just banned.

The START I treaty restricted sub-launched nuclear cruise missiles.

Cruise missiles are potentially harder to intercept than ballistic missiles because they can fly under the radar so they are sneaky.

They could be seen as a first strike capability which is more of a deterrent to war against us.