The best research to guide us in such a discussion is a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) that looks at Iranian A2/AD capabilities and possible U.S. responses, titled: “Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Threats.”

Military planners are hard at work on what they say are badly needed upgrades to the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal. A new bomber, new submarines and new intercontinental ballistic missiles – all under development contracts. Still undecided is whether the U.S. will develop a new air-launched cruise missile. For more on that program, we turn to Mark Gunzinger, analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“It is unclear whether a high atmospheric nuclear explosion would cause a significant EMP effect at lower altitudes and whether North Korea could execute such an attack without also affecting their own capabilities.”

“DoD [Department of Defense] should no longer assume that its strike aircraft will always be able to use short-range, direct attack ‘gravity’ weapons against targets that are covered by advanced point defense systems,” Mark Gunzinger, a former B-52 pilot and current analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said. “This applies across the spectrum of conflict, not just conventional warfare.” Gunzinger notes that even for a stealth bomber, a standoff weapon will likely be a necessity. “Attacking these defended targets will require medium-range standoff attack weapons,” Gunzinger said.

The Defense Department acknowledges that America’s military is on the path toward becoming a hollow force. The signs: declining readiness, insufficient end strength, and aging weapon systems. It is also true that the Pentagon’s nuclear forces have absorbed more than their fair share of cuts since the end of the Cold War, including cuts that have eroded the ability of its bombers to support their strategic deterrence mission. The early termination of the B-2 stealth bomber program at 21 aircraft, about 16 percent of the original requirement, may be the most notorious of these decisions.

Russia’s alleged violations serve as a pretext for deploying shorter and intermediate range weapons to strike other countries, like North Korea.