\u201cAlthough it\u2019s changing, the Pentagon has had to be dragged<\/a> into this. They\u2019ve been the laggard, not the leader,\u201d said Sullivan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee\u2019s Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee. \u201cI\u2019ve seen the awakening across the board, which is a positive thing, but we still need to get there.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lawmaker spoke to Defense News on May 2 about the Arctic\u2019s importance to America\u2019s national security, and what steps the government should take to ensure a strategic presence in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the years, you\u2019ve worked on changing the Pentagon\u2019s stance on the Arctic. Why, and what have you seen while in office?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n You\u2019ve probably seen my frustration over the last five and a half years in the Congress, but I think overall there is certainly an awakening of the nation\u2019s strategic interests in the Arctic region. And if you look at who\u2019s driving it, this one has primarily been driven by Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of my first hearings as a new senator was with President Barack Obama\u2019s defense secretary, Ash Carter, and I held up the DoD Arctic strategy. It was 13 pages, six of which were pictures. Climate change was mentioned like six times, and Russia was mentioned once in a footnote. China wasn\u2019t even mentioned. It wasn\u2019t a real strategic document. I kind of threw it on the dais in the hearing and told Ash Carter it was a joke. To be honest, I think he agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So one of the first things I did was mandate in the NDAA that the Pentagon actually put together a real strategic document that reflects national security interests, military capabilities, threats. After that, there have been several iterations of strategies<\/a> for the services, and it started to be pushing on an open door; a lot of the services started seeing the importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You may have seen the strategic Arctic port designations \u2015 which of course the Pentagon resists \u2015 and the authorization for six Polar-class icebreakers<\/a> that we\u2019re now finally starting to build. We have two icebreakers, and one\u2019s broken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One difference in five years that I\u2019ve seen is in the U.S. Northern Command commander; when I initially came into the Senate, [the commander] had zero interest, zero clue, but the current commander is all over it. Look at the former secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, the former secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson, and current Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David Goldfein<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about the military buildup in your state?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n America\u2019s an Arctic nation because of Alaska, and I like to say our state constitutes the three pillars of America\u2019s military. And it\u2019s a cornerstone of missile defense: We have a new missile field going in, the [Lockheed Martin-made Long Range Discrimination Radar at Clear Air Force Station] is almost ready, and that\u2019s going to be the most sophisticated ground-based radar system, probably, on the planet. There\u2019s even missile testing [at Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska] out on Kodiak Island.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019re the hub of air combat power for the Arctic and Asia-Pacific. You may have seen that we are getting two new squadrons of F-35s at Eielson Air Force Base<\/a>. In spite of the pandemic, the Air Force was on time landing<\/a> the first two of 54 F-35s at Eielson two weeks ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With those and the F-22s we have at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson<\/a>, Alaska will have over 100 fifth-generation fighters. There\u2019s no other place on planet Earth that has 100 combat-coded fifth-gen fighters. That\u2019s in addition to the KC-135, the AWACS, the C-17s, the F-16 aggressor squadron.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s going to continue. The Air Force will be making its OCONUS [outside the contiguous United States] KC-46 bed down decision<\/a>, and it\u2019s a complete no-brainer that it should be Alaska.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The secretary of defense had a great line at his confirmation hearing. I asked what kind of message it would send rivals if you pair 100 fifth-gen fighters with KC-46 tankers in Alaska, from which you can reach anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere in 8 hours. He said: \u201cSenator, that would send the message to our adversaries that we have extreme strategic reach.\u201d I love that one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What changed the thinking at the Pentagon, as you say? Was it the facts on the ground or a realization Congress wasn\u2019t leaving this alone?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I would think it was a combination, but sometimes you can see an Alaskan senator pounding on the Arctic and a reporter or four-star general could think: \u201cThis guy is doing it because it\u2019s parochial” \u2015 so a little bit dismissive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes the generals and admirals know what they\u2019re doing, and Congress is kind of a backwater. But there are other times, with all due respect, the generals and admirals kind of have their heads up their asses, and it\u2019s Congress leading. The Goldwater-Nichols Act<\/a> is probably the most glaringly obvious one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not just me, but [SASC members] Angus King, David Perdue and Thom Tillis. John McCain \u2015 I love that man \u2015 was pressing Arctic issues. So this isn\u2019t just one senator from the Arctic. And both Democrats and Republicans support the National Defense Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The facts on the ground are there are resources up there, new shipping routes are opening up, and China having icebreakers and trying to nudge into the group of Arctic nations. Look at the Russians<\/a>, as always.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You know, we get these Russian intercepts on a fairly routine basis. Usually the intercepts, we\u2019re professional with the Russians, but since the beginning of the year they\u2019ve done three \u2015 buzzing of our Alaskan coast, once in March and once in April. They flew over the Navy\u2019s ICEX exercise<\/a> in March.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think people started seeing that as a serious national security issue that impinges on the sovereignty of our nation. The NORTHCOM<\/a> commander<\/a> is now talking about hypersonics with avenues of approach to protect the entire homeland of the United States \u2014 that you have to cover the Arctic avenue approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The facts on the ground, the National Defense Strategy, the strong, consistent pressing by Congress and attention from the media \u2015 all of these factors started to pull the Pentagon into the game. Are we 100 percent there yet? No.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This strategic Arctic port idea<\/a> is just a simple idea that of course you should be able to pull up \u2015 we\u2019re not talking about an aircraft carrier, but I\u2019m saying you should be able to pull up a destroyer or a heavy icebreaker to a port in America that\u2019s defending our Arctic interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Right now you can\u2019t do that. The closest port is Anchorage or Dutch Harbor, which is like 1,600 nautical miles away from where the sea lanes are. That\u2019s like Fort Lauderdale covering Boston. We would never accept that on the East Coast. But there\u2019s been resistance to that, remarkably, but former Navy Secretary Spencer certainly saw the light on that. And you know, in my confirmation discussions with the new Navy secretary, I\u2019m going to make sure he sees the light as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You can\u2019t project power or maintain presence without some kind of logistical support in the region. The serious Arctic strategy, which Congress mandated, calls for FONOPS [freedom-of-navigation operations] to protect our interests up there. Well, can we even do FOPNOPS right now? We don\u2019t have the logistical hubs. We don\u2019t have the ice-breaking capability. We have subs up there all the time, but FONOPs are supposed to show presence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s the latest on the analysis of the need for a strategic Arctic port?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s my language and the NDAA. I got that in there about three or four years ago, and it laid out we need presence and logistics capability. It\u2019s not like asking for a Navy base, but do we need a strategic port to protect our interest in the region \u2015 recognizing that the nearest port is 1,500 nautical miles in Anchorage, where I am right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Pentagon initially gave that a little bit of a backhand and looked at what was required by the Senate Armed Services Committee in the NDAA, and said: \u201cNo, we don\u2019t need anything.\u201d This was the Pentagon being myopic, so I reattached it and said: \u201cNo. Wrong answer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m giving them a second opportunity to get to \u201cyes.\u201d At the same time, I\u2019m on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where we\u2019re working with the Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with City of Nome, Alaska, to look at building out their port in a way that could handle not a carrier, but a destroyer or icebreaker. This is, to me and most members of Congress, a no-brainer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That DoD report is due in June, but a lot of reports are slipping due to the pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019re not the East Coast, but this is becoming a much more crowded area of the world; the sea lanes are clearly opening up; the traffic from a commercial international trade perspective is dramatically increasing. So I\u2019ve always talked in terms of a series of ports \u2015 for example, at Naval Air Facility Adak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Navy\u2019s talking about warming up a Adak, and you could put some sub hunters there, bring in big ships \u2015 it\u2019s a protected port, and where it is in the Aleutian Island chain is a gateway to the Asia-Pacfic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Heading into NDAA season, where are you hoping to guide the Pentagon through the 2021 bill? There are some potential benefits to rural Alaska communities by improving military communications in the Arctic.<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n NORTHCOM\u2019s No. 1 unfunded priority is establishing a polar communication capability using a low-Earth orbit system of satellites. The funding for that, in the world of Pentagon budget, not very significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Alaska Republican] Sen. Lisa Murkowski and I have legislation to establish a Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies to help drive the strategic thinking in this area. And I plan to continue to press on the topic of the KC-46 bed down. We do have tankers in Alaska, and they\u2019re really important because we\u2019re at the seams of so many combatant commands, and the tankers we use now are 50 years old. Tankers in Alaska can service anyone, anywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Would you also address the Pentagon\u2019s decision to <\/b>cancel<\/b><\/a> the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program, which would have replaced the current Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle on the Ground-Based Interceptor? You\u2019ve expressed concerns about this publicly, and it ties in with Fort Greeley, Alaska.<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I still have concerns, and what\u2019s happened there is just remarkable. And I\u2019ve said publicly you have really smart guys seemingly making really dumb decisions. We\u2019ve almost finished 20 new silos out at Fort Greeley. [Undersecretary for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin is<\/a>] making the decision that the RKV wasn\u2019t exactly what we wanted. We need something much better, more perfect, but it\u2019s going to take at a minimum 10 years to develop, so we\u2019re going to leave these silos empty for 10 years. I mean, by any kind of strategically sensible review, that seems like a really dumb decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we have an incoming missile hit us \u2015 New York or Chicago \u2015 Alaska protects the whole country. But the shot doctrine is how many missiles and RKVs do we need to throw up in the air to make sure we take that missile out. And as you can imagine, it\u2019s not 1-to-1, so having more rounds in the chamber helps you with your shot doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now we\u2019re going to have 20 silos that are empty for at least 10 years, which I think ignores budgets, ignores the Congress. Heck, if you were at the Pentagon when the president was announcing the Missile Defense Review, he specifically mentioned these silos at Fort Greeley. I\u2019m not even sure he knows about the fact that one of his lower-level undersecretaries decided on his own to dig 20 holes and not put anything in there for at least 10 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/635817848904101036-coast-guard-north-pol-martjpg.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/6134098.jpg.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/4641313.jpg.jpg\")