Conventional Prompt Global Strike: Strategic Asset or Unusable Liability

摘要

The Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) concept calls for a U.S. capability to deliver conventional strikes anywhere in the world in approximately an hour. The logic of the CPGS concept is straightforward. The United States has global security commitments to deter and respond to a diverse spectrum of threats, ranging from terrorist organizations to near-peer competitors. The United States might need to strike a time-sensitive target protected by formidable air defenses or located deep inside enemy territory. Small, high-value targets might pop up without warning in remote or sensitive areas, potentially precluding the United States from responding to the situation by employing other conventional weapons systems, deploying Special Operations Forces (SOF), or relying on the host country. A long-range nuclear- armed ballistic missile has the speed and global reach to overcome these obstacles. But a President would probably prefer a conventional strike option as an alternative to nuclear weapons in most contingencies. In fact, many advocates of the CPGS concept argue that it would provide a new capability for scenarios in which existing conventional systems would be insufficient but the use of nuclear weapons would be inappropriate. Additionally, in many potential crises, a nuclear threat might lack credibility in the eyes of U.S. allies and adversaries regardless of a U.S. President's willingness to employ nuclear force. At the same time, U.S. allies and potential adversaries might question whether existing U.S. conventional weapons would be effective against some emerging threats. A long-range conventional strike capability might enhance deterrence and assurance by providing an effective and usable (and thus more credible) strike option. For these reasons, a conventional weapon that is faster, travels farther, and is more effective against antiaccess capabilities than existing conventional forces would be a valuable strategic asset.