In its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, DOD significantly expanded the range of strategic capabilities to include not only the old Triad, which consisted of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers, but also conventional and nonkinetic offensive strike and defensive capabilities. The review also called for revitalizing the U.S. research and development and industrial infrastructure that would develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems and be capable of responding in a timely manner to augment U.S. military capabilities when necessary. According to DOD, the three legs of the New Triad–offensive strike, active and passive defenses, and responsive infrastructure–are intended to be supported by timely and accurate intelligence, adaptive planning, and enhanced command and control capabilities. Figure 1 shows the three legs of the New Triad and its supporting elements. DOD concluded in the 2001 review that while nuclear weapons will continue to play a critical role in defending the United States, the combination of capabilities included in the New Triad would increase the military options available to the President and Secretary of Defense and allow for the development of responsive, adaptive, and interoperable joint forces that could be employed in a wider range of contingencies. DOD’s review indicated that the additional capabilities provided by the New Triad would partially mitigate the effects of any reductions in the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads that are planned through 2012. Table 1 shows the weapons systems and capabilities that make up the New Triad. In its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, DOD indicates that new initiatives and investments would be required to achieve a mix of new or improved capabilities that compose the offensive, defensive, and responsive infrastructure legs and supporting command and control, intelligence, and adaptive planning elements of the New Triad. In particular, the review found that major investment initiatives would be needed in the areas of advanced nonnuclear strike, missile defenses, command and control, and intelligence. DOD also plans to improve existing New Triad-related capabilities by modernizing existing weapon systems and enhancing the tools used to build and execute strike plans to provide more flexibility in adapting or developing military options during crises. An Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense told us that DOD intends to partially address near-term affordability issues for the New Triad by enhancing capability characteristics of current weapon systems, such as range, and leveraging capabilities already in development. In March 2003, DOD published a Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Plan that is intended to identify initiatives for developing the New Triad and institutionalizing the Nuclear Posture Review. DOD plans to implement the New Triad concept and many of the capabilities identified by the Nuclear Posture Review by 2012. However, DOD states that further investments are likely to be needed beyond that time frame as existing nuclear platforms age, such as the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system, and follow-on nuclear weapon systems are proposed. The Nuclear Posture Review also states that DOD should conduct periodic assessments to determine its progress in developing and integrating capabilities for the New Triad. Specifically, these strategic capability assessments are to review the (1) progress to date in reducing the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons, (2) state of the security environment, and (3) progress made in the development of the New Triad. An assessment team, which included representatives from DOD and the Department of Energy, completed its first Nuclear Posture Review strategic capability assessment and associated report in April 2005. An Office of the Secretary of Defense official told us that DOD plans to update its first assessment in the fall of 2005 to support the department’s conduct of the Quadrennial Defense Review. DOD intends to conduct subsequent assessments about every 2 years through 2012. Many DOD organizations, including the Joint Staff, military services, combatant commands, and defense agencies, and the Department of Energy, have responsibilities for implementing various aspects of the New Triad. These responsibilities are broadly defined in relevant New Triad implementation and guidance documents. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, two organizations have key responsibilities for overseeing and managing the New Triad implementation efforts: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is responsible for developing the policy and guidance to implement the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and for establishing an organizational framework for coordinating New Triad initiatives within DOD. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics is responsible for providing oversight for the development and deployment of New Triad capabilities. The U.S. Strategic Command also has a significant role in implementing the New Triad and supporting its missions. In addition to its responsibilities for strategic nuclear deterrence and military space operations missions, the command was assigned several new missions related to the New Triad in January 2003. These missions are: global strike; integrated missile defense; DOD information operations; and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. In January 2005, the Secretary of Defense also assigned the command responsibility for the mission of combating weapons of mass destruction. Appendix I provides additional information about the U.S. Strategic Command’s missions. Additionally, the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for assembling and distributing the FYDP, which DOD uses to formulate the estimated projected resources and proposed appropriations to support DOD programs, projects, and activities, including those related to the New Triad. The office is also responsible for coordinating with DOD components any proposed changes to the FYDP’s structure, such as updates to existing program element titles and definitions. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has responsibility for the annual budget justification material that is presented to Congress. These offices work collaboratively to ensure that the data presented in the budget justification material and the FYDP are equivalent at the appropriation account level. The FYDP is a report that resides in an automated database, which is updated and published at least 3 times a year to coincide with DOD’s internal budget development activities and annual budget submission to Congress. It provides projections of DOD’s near and midterm funding needs and reflects the total resources programmed by DOD, by fiscal year. The FYDP includes data on estimates for the fiscal year reflected in the current budget request and at least 4 subsequent years. Both detailed data and a summary report are generally provided to Congress with DOD’s annual budget submission. The FYDP is used as a source of data both for analysis and as an input to alternative ways of displaying and portraying actual and programmed resources. It contains data related to the forces, manpower, and total obligation authority for each program element. The FYDP is organized into 11 major force program categories, comprising combat forces and support programs, which are used as a basis for internal DOD program review. The major force program categories include strategic forces, general-purpose forces, research and development, and special operations forces. The FYDP is further arranged according to the appropriation structure utilized by Congress to review budget requests and enact appropriations, which includes major appropriation categories for procurement; operation and maintenance; military personnel; research, development, test, and evaluation; and military construction. Therefore, the FYDP’s structure serves the purpose of crosswalking DOD’s internal review structure with the congressional review structure. In 2003, DOD began implementing the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process to identify improvements to existing capabilities and guide development of new capabilities from a joint perspective that recognizes the need for trade-off analysis. The new process is designed to provide an approach to defense planning that looks at the broad range of capabilities to address contingencies that the United States may confront in the future. When fully implemented, JCIDS is intended to provide an enhanced methodology utilizing joint concepts that will identify and describe existing or future shortcomings in capabilities and identify integrated solutions that meet those capability needs. The system is also expected to provide better linkage to the acquisition process and improve prioritization of validated joint warfighting capability proposals. Specifically, it is intended to provide a broader review of proposals than did the previous planning process by involving additional participants, including the combatant commands, early in the process. The analyses conducted during the process are to result in a set of potential solutions, including additional resources or changes to doctrine and training designed to correct capability shortcomings. These solutions are then incorporated into roadmaps that show the resource strategies to develop and acquire the needed capabilities. DOD has not fully identified the projected spending for New Triad in the FYDP to date. In light of the challenges DOD faces in transforming strategic capabilities, decision makers need to have the best and most complete data available about the resources being allocated to the New Triad in making decisions on the affordability, sustainability, and trade-offs among the efforts to develop and acquire capabilities. The FYDP is one of the principal tools available to help inform DOD and Congress about resource data relating to these efforts. While DOD has identified some New Triad spending in its analyses and in relevant New Triad documents, our notional analysis of New Triad-related program elements indicates that overall projected spending for the New Triad through fiscal year 2009 could be much greater when other program elements that provide New Triad capabilities are considered. Additionally, the current FYDP data structure does not expressly identify and aggregate New Triad program elements that would allow identification of New Triad spending, and the program elements included in the FYDP’s existing major force program category for strategic forces do not fully capture the broader range of strategic capabilities that were envisioned in the Nuclear Posture Review. DOD does not plan to develop a complete and approved inventory of New Triad- related program elements in its FYDP because DOD officials believe that it is difficult to reach agreement on the program elements to be included in such an inventory.