U.S. military forces are not ready to respond to tactical nuclear weapons strikes by China in a protracted war, according to a recent Pentagon-funded study.

China’s rapid expansion of nuclear forces, coupled with the dual conventional and nuclear warhead configuration of its missile forces, means it is more likely to employ low-yield nuclear attacks in a future conflict with America, according to the report from the Center for a New American Security.

“Broadly speaking, the emerging nuclear dynamics between the United States and China appear to have different dynamics than those between the United States and the Soviet Union and carry a greater risk of limited nuclear use,” reads a portion of the study, which was funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

---

---

The report also calls for the Defense Department to consider building nuclear-tipped anti-ship missiles to counter growing threats from the People’s Republic of China, or PRC.

The study is based on hypothetical non-strategic nuclear attacks that were conducted during two tabletop exercises, which are simulated war games conducted in conference rooms.

The exercises found that a lengthy war between the U.S. and China will set conditions for tactical nuclear weapons strikes that are “both appealing to the PRC and difficult to manage for the United States.”

“In a protracted conflict, nuclear use is unfortunately plausible as either a substitute for conventional arms, or as a gamble for termination,” said Andrew Metrick, one of three CNAS co-authors of the report.

“In this future, the U.S. lacks the capabilities and concepts needed to achieve effective intra-war deterrence.”

The exercises found that tactical nuclear weapons use by both sides would continue during a war but not necessarily lead to a major nuclear exchange.

For China, the use of low-yield missile and bomber attacks are more conducive to the Indo-Pacific region because of broad ocean geography and targets, compared to plans for tactical arms use in Europe during the Cold War.

“The United States lacks the doctrine, capabilities, and concepts to manage the conventional-nuclear crossfade,” the report said, using the film editing term that means making one image fade as another image appears.

“U.S. nuclear thinking and systems remain tied to the Cold War, and current capabilities suffer from a lack of signaling tools and employment difficulties.”

To bolster defenses, the study recommends expanding nuclear capabilities.

“The United States likely lacks the theater nuclear capabilities necessary to engage in effective conflict management and forestall successful nuclear coercion,” the report said.

“For this reason, the United States should consider the development of a small number of nuclear-tipped anti-ship capabilities to increase the flexibility of U.S. theater nuclear capabilities and better align legacy Cold War capabilities with the Indo-Pacific age,” the study said.

21st-century weapons

America’s necessary weapons could include the nuclear-armed Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and Maritime Strike Tomahawk, as well as the W80-4 warhead, used for attacking ships.

Current U.S. advantages in conventional weapons also could lead China to use its unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons in airbursts capable of inflicting damage on enemy forces over wide areas.

To resolve regional nuclear warfighting issues, U.S. military forces must fully integrate nuclear activities into planning and exercises, the report argued, rather than regarding the options as what the report calls “last day” or stand-alone exercises.

Reviving the Cold War skills for preparing for tactical nuclear war also would send a powerful signal to China that U.S. forces are alert to the threat of nuclear escalation and that Beijing will not gain advantages from such attacks.

“Given the inherent signaling limitations of ballistic missile submarines, the U.S. Air Force must develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures to move nonstrategic nuclear weapons quickly and safely to theater and mate with forward-deployed aircraft,” the report said.

Another way to reduce the potential for regional nuclear conflict is to improve numbers and capabilities for advanced conventional arms.

U.S. tactical nuclear land-attack cruise missiles and other weapons were removed from U.S. warships in 1991 during the George H.W. Bush administration.

The current U.S. tactical nuclear weapons arsenal consists of about 230 B61 gravity bombs carried on jets.

The Trump administration in 2018 reversed an earlier decision to retire nuclear-armed Tomahawk cruise missiles and called for deploying low-yield sea-launched cruise missiles, or SCLM-N, for use as non-strategic regional forces.

The Trump administration also called for creating a low-yield W76 nuclear missile warhead for use on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Both tactical nuclear weapons were sought by military commanders to increase deterrence against both China and Russia.

The Biden administration sought to defund the SLCM-N but Congress rescued the program.

For allies, current U.S. nuclear policy relies heavily on extended deterrence and on key regional partners like Japan, South Korea and Australia to counter China’s buildup of regional missiles.

But China could use its expanding nuclear forces in a coercive effort to break U.S. extended deterrence and ultimately undermine American alliances in the region, the report said. Greater coordination with Japan and Australia on responses to China’s use of nuclear weapons is needed, the report said.

More engagement with China on nuclear weapons is also recommended by the study, but China for the past several decades has refused U.S. requests to hold nuclear arms talks.

In June, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced it was canceling nuclear arms and proliferation talks with the U.S. to protest recent American arms sales to Taiwan.

China’s nuclear ’breakout’

The Chinese nuclear expansion has been described by military commanders as a “breakout” from earlier Chinese military concepts which centered on deploying a small warhead arsenal.

Current Chinese strategic stockpiles are estimated to be around 500 warheads and will increase to as many as 1,500 by 2030. The number of tactical nuclear warheads is unknown.

The commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, testified to Congress in February that the size and rapid pace of Beijing’s nuclear buildup is “breathtaking.”

In the past five years, China’s nuclear expansion has included new mobile DF-31AG and DF-41 multi-warhead missiles, enhanced JL-3 submarine-launched missiles and modernized H-6N bombers.

The most dramatic increase was the deployment of over 300 hardened intercontinental ballistic missile silos in western China.

“PRC leadership has clearly decided on markedly increasing their nuclear capabilities but has failed to explain the overarching strategic rationale for this expansion,” the Center for a New American Security report said.

The buildup increases the threat of a misunderstanding and misperception leading to a nuclear exchange, since the rationale for the expansion has not been explained by Beijing.

China’s DF-26 intermediate-range missile is a nuclear weapon of particular concern. The DF-26 was dubbed a “Guam killer” by Beijing because it is designed to target the major U.S. military hub on the American Pacific island.

“While details on PLA thinking remain sparse, small-yield, precise nonstrategic nuclear arms neatly fit into the PLA’s conventional warfighting approaches and are being discussed in Chinese military writings,” the report said.