Support Supporters of the GBSD include the
Heritage Foundation, former Secretary of Defense
Lloyd Austin, former Secretary of Defense
Ash Carter, and members of Congress in the "ICBM Coalition." They argue that the ICBMs first introduced in the 1970s have had their life extended long enough and need to be replaced with a modular system in which components are easier to replace or update. In defending the importance of land-based missiles, supporters say they are the least expensive leg of the nuclear triad because they do not necessitate large maintenance crews or incur expensive refueling costs, like nuclear-powered submarines. Additionally, they argue land-based missiles are visible reminders that the US can strike back in the event of a nuclear attack, thus making them essential to nuclear deterrence. In its annual 2021 Threat Assessment, the US Intelligence community said China was planning to double its arsenal of nuclear weapons over the next ten years in "the most rapid expansion in its history." It also warned that Russia may expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal. One of the main supporters of the GBSD is Senator
Jon Tester (D-MT), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. In a March 21, 2021, interview with
Defense News, Tester said, "As of right now, I think it's important that we move forward with the GBSD because I believe there's still an important deterrent."
Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy in the Biden administration, told the press on April 9, 2021, "We have to keep and maintain the stockpile to make sure that it is safe and effective, and we will continue to do that to ensure that we can deter nuclear aggression from other countries."
Criticism GBSD critics include former Secretary of Defense
William Perry; the late
Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower and author of
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner; the
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL); the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS); and
Peace Action. They argue that the new missiles would be not only costly, but also dangerous, increasing the risk of accidentally launching a nuclear war. Critics say that the targeting of ICBM silos, which are supposed to act like a sponge drawing nuclear weapons to deplete Russia's nuclear power, could result in the deaths of more than 10 million people. Physicist David Wright, former co-director of the UCS Global Security Program, in his report
Rethinking Land-Based Nuclear Missiles, writes that submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) are as accurate, if not more, than land-based missiles, and are "virtually undetectable," making the ICBMs not only obsolete but also sitting ducks in the five states that house ICBMs. Wright concludes that the vulnerability of ICBMs has prompted the Air Force to keep them on high alert, which is dangerous and could trigger a nuclear war. In FAS' 2026 report on US nuclear weapons, they argued the Sentinel program does nothing to address the primary existing problems of land-based ICBMs, including the
launch-on-warning posture, the danger of missiles triggering nuclear retaliation from a country whose territory they fly over (e.g. Russia), while en route to their true target (e.g. China, North Korea, Iran), silo weaknesses during environmental catastrophes or to conventional weapons attacks. They argued argued the Air Force has yet to explain why the Sentinel will have a greater range, given it is unlikely to have the necessary range to avoid such overflights. They argued US adversaries have no
boost-phase intercept capabilities, therefore ICBM reliability depends entirely on the payload e.g. its
penetration aids. == Polling ==