People look at a military plane during the Expo Aeronautica Venezuela 2025, after U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered "closed in its entirety," without giving further details, as his administration ramps up pressure on President Nicolas Maduro's government, in Maracay, Venezuela November 29, 2025. REUTERS/Juan Carlos Hernandez
It was in August 1945 — 80 years ago — that the U.S. military, on orders from Democratic President Harry Truman, detonated nuclear bombs over two Japanese cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Countless wars have occurred since then, none of which involved the use of nuclear weapons. And U.S. Defense Department officials, from the Reagan Administration to the Obama Administration, have often used the word "deterrence" in reference to the United States' nuclear arsenal.
Now, in late 2025, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach is using a different word in reference to nuclear weapons: "recapitalization" — which, journalist Austin Campell warns in an article published by The Intercept on December 8, marks an "apparent departure from decades of Air Force teaching that the United States maintains nuclear weapons solely for deterrence."
Campbell explains, "'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."
One of the military experts The Intercept interviewed was retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. William Astore.
Known for being a military historian, Astore told The Intercept, "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."
Astore lamented that Wilsbach's rhetoric "echoes the Trump Administration's emphasis on warrior culture and lethality."
Astore told The Intercept, "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."
Retired U.S. Air Force Col. John Gilbert was equally critical of Wilsbach's "recapitalization" comment, telling The Intercept, "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."
Read Austin Campell's full article for The Intercept at this link.