During the Cold War, the United States maintained a diverse arsenal of nuclear weapons to support deter Soviet aggression. This arsenal included land-based, theater-range missiles operated by the U.S. Army. Such systems complicated Soviet decision-making and provided the President with additional, credible options to respond to escalation.
The Army retired all its nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War and largely exited the nuclear mission. At the same time, the overall number of non-strategic U.S. nuclear weapons plummeted, going from roughly 7,000 nuclear weapons in Europe at the height of the Cold War to roughly 200 today.
However, 35 years since the end of the Cold War, Russia and China are expanding and modernizing their non-strategic nuclear arsenals and increasingly relying on nuclear coercion to achieve their aims. Russia has violated virtually all nuclear arms control treaties and possesses a large advantage in the number of deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons. Meanwhile China is the fastest growing nuclear power on the planet, fielding nuclear capable anti-ship and land-attack missiles, which has eroded America’s deterrent.
Consequently, the United States must adapt both its conventional and nuclear strategic deterrent posture. In this vein, the Army should rejoin the Navy and the Air Force in the nuclear mission and once again assume responsibility for providing mobile, land-based nuclear capabilities to strengthen deterrence, hedge against growing strategic risks, and ensure the President has the tools needed to respond flexibly to nuclear escalation.
Through much of the Cold War, the Army fielded various non-strategic nuclear weapons, ranging from small artillery-based munitions to ballistic missiles. The Lance and Pershing II ballistic missiles were low-yield, theater-ranged ballistic missiles that provided the President with additional options to hold enemy targets at risk, thereby strengthening America’s theater deterrent posture.
Today, the United States maintains only one type of forward deployed non-strategic nuclear weapon, the B-61 gravity bomb—a relic of the Cold War that can be delivered by nuclear capable fighter-bombers.
While necessary and useful, such gravity bombs are not stand-off and must be dropped close to a target, potentially over enemy air space and potentially in a contested air environment, where enemy planes and air defenses may be operating. To alleviate some risk, a large entourage of conventional support aircraft would be required, which could likely reduce the operational tempo of the U.S. air campaign.
Alternatively, the presence of mobile, ground-based nuclear options would increase the range of objectives able to be targeted, as the range of the missiles themselves are in the hundreds to even thousands of kilometers.
These challenges of distance are magnified in the Indo-Pacific, where the lack of forward-deployed assets and the reliance on short-range delivery platforms like the B61 gravity bomb severely limits credible options and highlights the advantages of ground-based options such as Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCM) and Ground-Launched Ballistic Missiles (GLBM).
Ground-based systems are mobile and concealable, making them survivable to preemptive attacks by an adversary. GLCMs are maneuverable, have small radar cross sections, and often fly relatively close to the ground, making them less detectable by radar.
GLBMs are significantly faster and often larger than GLCMs, but more easily detected by radar. They can be made with maneuverable reentry vehicles, though, which aids in the penetration of adversary air and missile defenses.
Intermediate-range GLBMs, particularly those that have maneuverable or hypersonic reentry vehicles, are ideally suited for the Indo-Pacific given their extended range and the lack of basing options in that theater.
Further, ground-launched systems are prompt, highly likely to penetrate adversary defenses, effective against a range of targets, survivable, and can be forward deployed in Europe and Asia. This latter characteristic is important, in that forward deployment in allied countries assures and allies in a way that forces generated within the United States cannot be—and also be available immediately without requiring a deployment decision or sending potentially undesirable signaling.
The military maintains thousands of retired nuclear warheads at Kirtland Underground Munitions Maintenance and Storage Complex in New Mexico. If the Army’s new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) were made nuclear capable, it would provide a highly accurate ground-based, theater-ranged non-strategic nuclear weapon that would give the President additional ways to respond to nuclear escalation and strengthen the country’s deterrent effect at the theater level.
The Army is perfectly suited to the task, given their specialization in ground-based warfare and weapon systems and their Cold War legacy of being a nuclear service. The U.S. Army also could take initiative by examining the utility of integrating nuclear warheads in their forthcoming Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, which would provide a low-yield and highly survivable nuclear weapon.
The United States walk-back from non-strategic nuclear weapons—and the Army’s divestment from the nuclear mission—made sense during the post-Cold War era. But the U.S. Army’s withdrawal from land-based, theater-range nuclear capabilities has created a gap in deterrence, especially as Russia and China expand their tactical nuclear arsenals and missile technologies.
To regain its edge, the U.S. must reintegrate mobile, tactical nuclear weapons resembling the Pershing II and Lance missiles, and invest in nuclear-capable hypersonic systems. Nuclear-capable GLCMs and GLBMs would provide the U.S. with flexible, credible deterrence options, countering the growing threats from adversaries and ensuring a robust response to nuclear escalation.
‘Robert Peters is a Senior Research Fellow for Strategic Deterrence at the Heritage Foundation.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.