Sacrifice States: the US Nuclear Sponge

The term “nuclear sponge” refers to a strategic military concept employed by the United States during the Cold War and beyond. It involves the deliberate deployment of a significant number of nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems, such as missile silos and bomber bases, in a specific geographic area. The main purpose of the nuclear sponge is to absorb, or “soak up,” a potential enemy’s nuclear strike, forcing them to expend a considerable portion of their arsenal to neutralize these targets. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of a successful first strike and raises the threshold for nuclear war.

During the Cold War, the United States developed a strategy of deterrence, which aimed to prevent nuclear war by convincing potential adversaries that any attack on the United States would result in devastating retaliation. One component of this strategy was to disperse nuclear weapons and launch platforms across the country, which would make it more difficult for an enemy to target them all at once. The five states commonly referred to as the “nuclear sponge” were important in this strategy because they contained missile silos and other nuclear assets that would be difficult for an adversary to locate and destroy in a preemptive strike.

The five states that are commonly referred to as the “US nuclear sponge” are Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. The idea of these states acting as a “nuclear sponge” emerged as a way to describe the potential function of this dispersed nuclear posture. The theory is that, in the event of a nuclear attack, these states would absorb a significant portion of the incoming missiles and thus reduce the damage to more populous areas of the country. However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of this strategy is debated, and some analysts argue that it is more likely to lead to significant civilian casualties in these sparsely populated areas.

Key elements and considerations of the United States’ nuclear sponge strategy include:

1. Strategic location: The nuclear sponge strategy relies on deploying nuclear assets in areas that are relatively remote and sparsely populated, thus minimizing civilian casualties in the event of a nuclear attack. Examples include the missile fields of the Great Plains in states like Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
2. Triad of nuclear forces: The U.S. nuclear arsenal is based on a triad of delivery systems—intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The ICBM silos and bomber bases serve as the primary components of the nuclear sponge, while SLBMs provide a secure and survivable second-strike capability.
3. Deterrence: The nuclear sponge strategy is an integral part of the United States’ broader nuclear deterrence policy. By distributing nuclear assets across a wide area and ensuring a significant portion of the arsenal is survivable, the U.S. aims to deter potential adversaries from launching a first strike.
4. Cost of attacking the sponge: An enemy seeking to neutralize the U.S. nuclear sponge would need to allocate a large number of warheads to target these assets, limiting their ability to strike other targets, such as major population centers or military installations. This creates a high cost for initiating a nuclear exchange, which further contributes to deterrence.
5. Modernization and arms control: Over the years, the United States’ nuclear sponge has evolved in response to changes in technology, geopolitical conditions, and arms control agreements. The New START Treaty, signed in 2010 and extended in 2021, limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons for both the U.S. and Russia. This has influenced the size and composition of the U.S. nuclear sponge, as well as its role in the overall deterrence posture.

Critics of the nuclear sponge strategy argue that it perpetuates the risk of nuclear war and may encourage adversaries to invest in more advanced nuclear capabilities. They also contend that it diverts resources away from more pressing needs, such as addressing new threats in the domains of cyber warfare and space. However, proponents argue that the nuclear sponge remains an essential component of U.S. nuclear deterrence and is necessary for maintaining strategic stability in an uncertain geopolitical landscape.