In his first major guidance to the Air Force, the newly appointed Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach emphasized a need for the “recapitalization” of nuclear weapons — an apparent departure from decades of Air Force teaching that the United States maintains nuclear weapons solely for deterrence.
“We will advocate relentlessly for programs like the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft as well as nuclear force recapitalization through the Sentinel program and the B-21,” Wilsbach wrote in a memo dated November 3, referring to planned upgrades to nuclear missiles and stealth bombers.
Experts who spoke to The Intercept said the language signals a doctrinal pivot, prioritizing displays of strength and the buildup of nuclear weaponry over internal repair — an approach that may appeal politically to the Trump administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but does little to ease the fatigue and distrust spreading among airmen.
“This memo of unity and warfighting spirit reflects current Department of War and Pete Hegseth language, but that language is also inadequate because it assumes U.S. military capability is the best in the world and getting better, a dangerous and flawed assumption,” said Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former Pentagon analyst who exposed the politicization of intelligence before the Iraq War.
The Sentinel program Wilsbach referenced is intended to modernize the land-based leg of the nuclear triad, with new missiles, hardened silos, and updated command-and-control infrastructure across missile fields in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. It’s the Air Force’s planned replacement for aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile systems. The B-21 Raider is the next-generation stealth bomber designed to replace older strategic bombers like the B-2 and B-1, delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads.
Critics say framing these nuclear modernization efforts as “recapitalization” obscures the ethical and strategic implications of expanding U.S. nuclear capabilities amid declining morale and retention.
“You don’t ‘recapitalize’ genocidal weaponry.”
“The chief of staff’s emphasis on weaponry is disheartening. His description of nuclear weapon ‘recapitalization’ is an abomination of the English language. You don’t ‘recapitalize’ genocidal weaponry. Both the Sentinel missile program and the B-21 bomber are unnecessary systems that could cost as much as $500 billion over the next 20 years,” said William Astore, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and military historian.
John Gilbert, a member of the Scientists Working Group at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, noted “a very significant omission” in Wilsbach’s rhetoric.
“He basically ignored the U.S. Air Force’s role in maintaining our national intercontinental ballistic missile force as a day-to-day ready-to-launch deterrent,” meaning that it’s not supposed to be used for offensive purposes, said Gilbert, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel with decades of experience in strategic missile operations, inspections and arms control.
“He basically ignored the U.S. Air Force’s role in maintaining our national intercontinental ballistic missile force as a day-to-day ready-to-launch deterrent.”
Wilsbach has long been a proponent of bolstering U.S. nuclear capabilities. While leading Air Combat Command, he pushed to restore Pacific basing — including Tinian’s North Field, the Enola Gay’s departure point — to support nuclear-capable B-2 bombers. The effort underscores how current planning focuses on rapid strike and deterrence against China and other adversaries.
“Our main purpose has never changed: We fly and fix to fight and win our nation’s wars,” Wilsbach said during a speech at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to senior Air Force leaders on November 18. He reinforced his message by referencing Operation Midnight Hammer, the controversial June airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities involving about 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers in a 36-hour global mission.
“It is our core responsibility as airmen to stay ready, be credible and capable every single day,” he said.
When he became chief of staff, Wilsbach made his first base visit to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, the headquarters of Air Force Global Strike Command and the center of the Air Force’s nuclear mission, suggesting that his initial focus was on the nuclear enterprise.
Analysts who spoke to The Intercept framed Wilsbach’s focus as part of a broader departure from the military’s stated apolitical role, aligning service culture with partisan priorities rather than institutional needs.
“He ends with ‘Fight’s on,’ but never explains who we are fighting or why.”
Wilsbach’s rhetoric “echoes the Trump administration’s emphasis on warrior culture and lethality,” said Astore, who has taught at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. “What stands out is that the chief of staff does not mention the Air Force’s core values, integrity, service, and excellence, or the oath to support and defend the Constitution. He doesn’t address operations tempo, stress, or the rising suicides among maintainers. Instead, he reduces complex issues to jargon about ‘combat power’ and ‘full-spectrum readiness.’ He ends with ‘Fight’s on,’ but never explains who we are fighting or why.”
For five Air Force veterans and active-duty members, the rhetoric comes at the expense of addressing manpower shortages, aging aircraft, and a mental health and morale crisis within the Air Force. Many of the Air Force’s core aircraft date back to the Cold War, including KC-135 tankers and B-52H bombers that are more than 60 years old, and F-15C/D fighters first fielded in the 1970s. Their age demands costly maintenance and contributes to significant environmental harm through chronic fluid leaks and poor fuel efficiency.
“The Air Force keeps repeating the same cycle. Leaders like this are too focused on pleasing Hegseth and his obsession with lethality and ‘warrior culture’ to deal with what is killing their people,” said retired Air Force Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, pointing to a previous story from The Intercept that revealed a suicide crisis within the Air Force. The previous story, published days before the memo was released, highlighted how the force failed to comply with a congressional mandate to release detailed death data.
The current leadership’s approach is “disgusting,” added Bryant, a defense and national security analyst who formerly worked at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.
Adding to the stress is that weapons troops, who load bombs and missiles onto aircraft, are expected to load missiles without knowing target configurations — and with the knowledge that objecting would carry serious consequences.
“We simply follow orders. Now, on the bomber side of things, I can confidently say we are not informed about what an operation entails beyond loading configurations,” said an active-duty source with direct experience training new weapons troops at tech school.
Service members throughout the U.S. military carry out lawful orders without being briefed on strategic intent, but for weapons loaders, the consequences are stark due to the lethality of the munitions they are ordered to prepare. That arsenal includes Joint Direct Attack Munitions, used in strikes that have produced high civilian death tolls; cluster munitions, which scatter bomblets that often fail to detonate and later kill civilians; and, in some units, nuclear warheads — weapons whose potential consequences exceed anything a loader or pilot is ever told.
“If people don’t follow these orders, there are going to be consequences,” said former weapons troop Alan Roach.
“The new F-47, yet another expensive fighter program, was apparently numbered ‘47’ to flatter President Trump.”
At the top, even the naming of new airframes signals political alignment within the Air Force, Astore said. “The new F-47, yet another expensive fighter program, was apparently numbered ‘47’ to flatter President Trump,” he said.
In remarks praising Wilsbach, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said he “understands the criticality of current readiness on a personal level,” adding, “We must be ready at a moment’s notice to meet the most challenging adversary that we’ve seen in generations. That means our systems need to work — fly, fix, fight.”
But “‘Readiness’ to fight is not the Air Force’s first responsibility,” Astore said. “The first responsibility is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. We are guided by the law of the land, not the beauty of our weapons or a warrior’s urge to use them.”
The post New Air Force Chief Boosts Nuclear Buildup, Moving Away From Deterrence, Experts Warn appeared first on The Intercept.
This post was originally published on The Intercept.