Shield

A key aspect of the Trump administration’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative is ensuring America’s ability to launch retaliatory nuclear strikes, the nominee to become the next head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has stressed. This comes amid particular concerns within the halls of the U.S. government about the new deterrence challenges posed by China’s ongoing push to expand the scope and scale of its nuclear capabilities dramatically.

Navy Vice Adm. Richard Correll, who is currently deputy head of STRATCOM, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week about his nomination to lead the command. Ahead of that hearing, he also submitted unclassified written answers to questions from members of the committee.

One of the questions posed to Correll asked how, if confirmed, he would expect to work with the central manager for the Golden Dome initiative, a post currently held by Space Force Gen. Mike Guetlein.

“Per Executive Order 14186, the Golden Dome for America (GDA) Direct Reporting Program Manager (DRPM) is responsible to ‘deliver a next-generation missile defense shield to defend its citizens and critical infrastructure against any foreign aerial attack on the U.S. homeland and guarantees a second-strike capability.’ If confirmed, I look forward to working with the GDA DRPM to ensure missile defense is effective against the developing and increasingly complex missile threats, to guarantee second-strike capability, and to strengthen strategic deterrence,” Correll wrote in response.

In deterrence parlance, a second-strike capability refers to a country’s credible ability to respond in kind to hostile nuclear attacks. This is considered essential to dissuading opponents from thinking they might be able to secure victory through even a massive opening salvo.

Helping to ensure America’s second-strike nuclear deterrent capability, as well as aiding in the defense specifically against enemy “countervalue” attacks, has been central to the plan for Golden Dome, which was originally called Iron Dome, since it was first announced in January. Countervalue nuclear strikes are ones expressly aimed at population centers, as opposed to counterforce strikes directed at military targets.

“Since the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and initiated development of limited homeland missile defense, official United States homeland missile defense policy has remained only to stay ahead of rogue-nation threats and accidental or unauthorized missile launches,” President Donald Trump wrote in his executive order on the new missile defense initiative in January. “Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems and their own homeland integrated air and missile defense capabilities.”

How exactly Golden Dome factors into the second strike equation is not entirely clear. The U.S. nuclear triad currently consists of nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers, silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and Ohio class nuclear submarines loaded with Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles. At present, the Ohio class submarines provide the core of America’s second-strike capability, but are not directly threatened by the kinds of weapons that Golden Dome is meant to shield against while they are out on their regular deterrent patrols.

At the same time, there might be scenarios in which U.S. officials are concerned that the Ohios may no longer be entirely sufficient. A massive first strike that renders the air and ground legs of the triad moot, and also targets ballistic missile submarines still in port, would certainly put immense pressure on deployed submarines to carry out adequate retaliatory strikes with the warheads available to them. If multiple countries are involved, those demands would only be magnified. Threats to the submarines at sea, including ones we may not know about, as well as enemy missile defenses, something China has also been particularly active in developing, would also have to be factored in. Concerns about the potential destruction or compromise of nuclear command and control nodes, including through physical attacks or non-kinetic ones like cyber intrusions, would affect the overall calculus, too. Altogether, ensuring greater survivability of the other legs of the triad, where Golden Dome would be more relevant, might now be viewed as necessary.

Regardless, as noted, concerns about China’s ongoing nuclear build-up and the policy shifts that come along with it have been particularly significant factors in U.S. discussions about missile defense and deterrence in recent years. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) just offered the first public look at elements of all three legs of its still very new strategic nuclear triad at a massive military parade in Beijing in September. In recent years, U.S. officials have been outspoken about massive assessed increases in Chinese nuclear warheads and delivery systems. This includes the construction of vast arrays of nuclear silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), as well as the development and fielding of more and more advanced road-mobile ICBMs. China is now fielding air-launched nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and is growing the size and capabilities of its fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines, as well. Experts have also highlighted how China’s growing nuclear capabilities could point to plans for countervalue targeting.

“China’s ambitious expansion, modernization, and diversification of its nuclear forces has heightened the need for a fully modernized, flexible, full-spectrum strategic deterrence force. China remains focused on developing capabilities to dissuade, deter, or defeat third-party intervention in the Indo-Pacific region,” Correll wrote in response to a separate question ahead of his confirmation hearing last week. “We should continue to revise our plans and operations including integrating nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities in all domains across the spectrum of conflict. This will convey to China that the United States will not be deterred from defending our interests or those of our allies and partners, and should deterrence fail, having a combat ready force to achieve the President’s objectives.”

Correll’s written responses also highlighted concerns about Russia’s nuclear modernization efforts and growing nuclear threats presented by North Korea. He also touched on the current U.S. government position that there has been a worrisome increase in coordination between China, Russia, and North Korea, which presents additional challenges that extend beyond nuclear weapons.

“The Russian Federation continues to modernize and diversify its arsenal, further complicating deterrence. Regional actors, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) present additional threats,” he wrote. “More than nuclear, China and Russia maintain strategic non-nuclear capabilities that can cause catastrophic destruction. The major challenge facing USSTRATCOM is not just addressing each of these threat actors individually but addressing them comprehensively should their alignment result in coordinated aggression.”

It is important to stress that significant questions have been raised about the Golden Dome plans, including the feasibility of key elements, such as space-based anti-missile interceptors, and the immense costs expected to be involved. When any new operational Golden Dome capabilities might begin to enter service very much remains to be seen. Guetlein, the officer now in charge of the initiative, has described it as being “on the magnitude of the Manhattan Project,” which produced the very first nuclear weapons. 

There is also the question of whether work on Golden Dome might exacerbate the exact nuclear deterrence imbalances it is supposed to help address. In his written responses to the questions ahead of his confirmation hearing, Correll acknowledged the impact that U.S. missile defense developments over the past two decades have already had on China’s nuclear arsenal and deterrence policies.

“China believes these new capabilities offset existing U.S. and allies missile defense systems,” he wrote. This, in turn, “may affect their nuclear strike calculus, especially if state survival is at risk.”

Russian officials also regularly highlight countering U.S. missile defenses as a key driver behind their country’s efforts to expand and evolve its nuclear arsenal. Just last week, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin claimed that new tests of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon torpedo, both of which are nuclear-powered and intended to be nuclear-armed, had been successfully carried out. The development of both of those weapons has been influenced by a desire to obviate missile defenses.

In terms of global nuclear deterrence policies, there is now the additional wrinkle of the possibility of the United States resuming critical-level weapons testing. Trump announced a still largely unclear shift in U.S. policy in this regard last week. The U.S. Department of Energy has pushed back on the potential for new tests involving the detonation of actual nuclear devices, but Trump has also talked about a need to match work being done by Russia and China. You can read more about the prospect of new full-up U.S. nuclear weapon testing here.

The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice! Russia is…

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) October 30, 2025

American authorities have accused Russia in the past of violating its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) with very low-yield tests and criticized China for a lack of transparency around its testing activities. Russian authorities say they are now looking into what it would take to resume open critical-level nuclear testing in response to Trump’s comments.

North Korea is the only country to have openly conducted critical-level nuclear tests in the 21st century, and there are fears now it could be gearing up for another one. It should be noted that the United States and other nuclear powers regularly conduct nuclear weapon testing that does not involve critical-level detonations.

For now, as underscored by Correll’s responses to the questions posed ahead of his recent confirmation hearing, concerns about the assuredness of America’s nuclear second-strike capability remain a key factor in the push ahead with Golden Dome.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Kim Jong Un references ‘new important nuclear strategy’ in high-level meeting with scientists and military officials.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has directed top officials to strengthen the nation’s “nuclear shield and sword”, saying only a “nuclear counteraction” could safeguard his country’s security.

In a meeting with nuclear scientists and technicians on Friday, including Hong Sung-mu, a senior official believed to have spearheaded North Korea’s nuclear programme, Kim said the production of nuclear materials and weapons was an “essential top priority”, according to state media.

“The powerful deterrent, namely, the logic of peacekeeping and security by force with nuclear forces as its backbone is the invariable stand of the DPRK,” Kim was quoted as saying by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is North Korea’s official name.

Kim also made reference to “main tasks” that had been carried out by the country’s nuclear weapons research institute with regard to “a new important nuclear strategy”, South Korea’s official Yonhap news agency reported.

The North Korean leader did not provide details regarding that new strategy.

“Comrade Kim Jong Un said we must constantly sharpen and renew the nuclear shield and sword that can reliably guarantee national sovereignty, security and interests and the right to development,” KCNA added.

Kim’s meeting with his nuclear scientists and military officials follows just days after South Korea said Pyongyang was presumed to possess as much as 2,000kg (2 tonnes) of highly-enriched uranium.

South Korea’s Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said on Thursday that just 10-12kg (22-26lbs) of enriched uranium was adequate to build a nuclear bomb.

“Even at this very hour, uranium centrifuges at four locations (in North Korea) are running, probably accumulating nuclear materials,” Chung said, according to Yonhap.

The minister also said it was now impossible to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme through the forces of sanctions, but the resumption of talks between Pyongyang and Washington could offer a “breakthrough” to denuclearisation efforts.

“It will be desirable for [talks] to take place as soon as possible,” the minister said.

Kim said recently there was no reason to avoid dialogue with the US if Washington ceased insisting that his country give up nuclear weapons.

“Personally, I still have fond memories of US President Trump,” Kim said, according to KCNA, referring to meeting Trump three times during the United States president’s first administration.

“If the United States drops the absurd obsession with denuclearising us and accepts reality, and wants genuine peaceful coexistence, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the United States,” Kim was quoted as saying.

“The world already knows full well what the United States does after it makes a country give up its nuclear weapons and disarms,” Kim said.

“We will never give up our nuclear weapons,” he added.

California police officers accused of misconduct are already shielded by some of the strictest confidentiality laws in the country, but state lawmakers are considering adding more layers of secrecy this week.

The state Legislature is weighing Assembly Bill 1178, which press advocates and police watchdogs said would drastically expand the number of officers whose personnel records were exempt from public disclosure, essentially gutting police transparency bills passed in 2018 and 2021.

Last-minute changes to the bill last week would have allowed law enforcement agencies to deny requests for public records related to any officer who has worked an undercover assignment within the last two years, received a death threat in the last 10 years or anyone who has been assigned to a state or federal task force.

The office of Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) said the bill was initially “very narrowly targeted” to protect the identifies of active undercover officers who did not commit misconduct and are not under investigation but were present during wrongdoing by others.

Pacehco’s spokeswoman, Alina Evans, said the bill was amended in the state Senate at the request of the state Department of Justice, and Evans said the bill will not move forward if it is reinserted.

Asked for details about why the California Department of Justice pushed for the amendment, a spokesperson for state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said: “We regularly provide technical assistance on legislation, but we can’t comment on any specific discussions with legislative offices or committees.”

Opponents contend that the proposal’s original language could still allow undercover officers to have their names kept secret even if they are involved in a fatal shooting or accused of serious misconduct, but Evans said their names would still be subject to disclosure, just like any other officer’s would be under the current law.

The last-minute lobbying push around Pacheco’s proposal is one of several late bids to water down pro-transparency bills that have been introduced this year, said Shayla Wilson, policy and advocacy advisor for La Defensa, a criminal justice reform advocacy group.

“At a time when public trust in law enforcement continues to dwindle, further redactions in police misconduct records is not the right move,” she said. “Generally the public is unaware of how often these [police misconduct] violations happen, or how egregious they are.”

Transparency advocates have sought to expand public access to police personnel files, as well as records related to civilian oversight bodies and misconduct litigation. Efforts to open access to misconduct records have repeatedly run into aggressive opposition from police unions, one of the most powerful political forces in the Capitol.

LAPD officers conduct an operation on Slauson Avenue in July.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

The unions and their allies have argued that California’s confidentiality rules protect officer safety and privacy — and prevent so-called doxxing incidents, in which personal information about officers is spread online.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell did not respond to several attempts for comment through a spokesperson. The Police Commission, the department’s civilian watchdog, said in a statement that it supports Pacheco’s legislation.

“There is valid concern for the safety of officers whose assignments require anonymity as well as employees who have been subject to death threats — and their families. The Commission does believe that transparency is important but feels it is crucial to strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the safety of officers and their families,” the statement said.

The commission’s statement did not cite specifics but noted, “there have been times when the disclosure of records has provided safety concerns for officers and by default an [undue] level of access to their families, including their minor children.”

The proposed changes to state law come amid ongoing litigation over the publication of thousands of mugshot-style photos of LAPD officers obtained by an L.A.-based journalist and the watchdog group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition.

The journalist, Ben Camacho, obtained the images via a California Public Records Act request and published them on a searchable website called Watch the Watchers. The site describes itself as a transparency tool for people to identify officers who have committed misconduct.

But shortly after the site went live in March 2023, LAPD officials announced that they had inadvertently released photos of officers who worked undercover. The disclosure led to a tangle of legal cases, including a claim filed by the city of L.A. against Camacho and his organization trying to claw back the pictures.

Last June, the city settled the suit, agreeing to pay the legal bills for Camacho and Stop LAPD Spying. In the process, the city has backed away from initial claims that many of the officers whose photos were released were put in danger because they worked undercover. Police unions also sued over the photos, making similar arguments about the safety of officers being compromised, but their claim against the LAPD was dropped in April.

The Los Angeles Times was among the outlets to join a coalition of news organizations that spoke out against the city’s lawsuit against Camacho, arguing that forcing him to return the photos “would set a dangerous precedent that will undermine the news media’s ability to freely disseminate lawfully obtained information to the public.”

Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto is among those who has lobbied California lawmakers to weaken the state’s public records law. In the summer of 2023, she proposed a change that would allow government agencies to decline future public records requests that seek “images or data that may personally identify” employees.

Reporting from Washington — It was an October afternoon when 13-year-old Andy Lopez, wearing shorts and a blue sweatshirt, walked down a sidewalk in Santa Rosa, Calif., loosely carrying at his side a plastic pellet gun that resembled an assault rifle.

Two Sonoma County sheriff’s deputies were driving in the neighborhood on a routine patrol. When Officer Erick Gelhaus, an Iraq war veteran, spotted the 5-foot-3 teenager, he thought the boy might be carrying an AK-47.

Their patrol car swung behind Andy. From 60 feet away, Gelhaus jumped out, crouched behind the door and shouted “Drop the gun!”

As Andy began to turn toward him, Gelhaus fired eight shots, killing the boy.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to shield the deputy from being sued by the parents of the boy on the grounds that no law “squarely governs” this situation and would have alerted the officer that shooting the teenager on the sidewalk amounted to the use of “excessive force.”

Decision time: Supreme Court tackles cases on gay rights, gerrymandering, unions »

Joined by several California law enforcement groups, Sonoma County’s lawyers are urging the justices to “support the common sense proposition that officers need not wait for a gun to actually be leveled or pointed at them before responding with deadly force to protect themselves and the public.”

They stand a good chance of prevailing, even though the high court grants only about 1% of appeal petitions.

In recent years, the justices have regularly intervened in police shooting cases to overturn rulings that cleared the way for a jury to decide whether an officer used excessive force.

In April, the high court, by a 7-2 vote, tossed out a lawsuit against a Tucson police officer who shot a woman four times as she stood in her front yard holding a large kitchen knife. The officer, one of three who came on the scene, decided she was threatening another woman who stood six feet away. The other woman later testified they were housemates, and she did not feel threatened.

The justices reversed the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the woman’s suit to proceed. “Use of excessive force is an area of law in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case, and thus police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue,” the court said in Kisela vs. Hughes.

In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the decision “sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers … that they can shoot first and think later.”

The shooting of Andy Lopez in 2013 sparked protests in Santa Rosa and an FBI investigation. But no charges were brought against Gelhaus, and the officer returned to duty in two months.

Andy’s parents sued under the long-standing federal civil rights law that authorizes suits against officers who violate a person’s constitutional rights. In this instance, the suit alleged a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Chief District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland refused to grant immunity to the officer, and the 9th Circuit Court, by a 2-1 vote, affirmed her decision last year.

Judge Milan D. Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the officer did not appear to face an imminent threat.

“Andy was walking normally … in broad daylight in a residential neighborhood” and carrying a weapon that another driver in the area saw as being a toy gun, even though it did not have an orange plastic tip. “Gelhaus deployed deadly force while Andy was standing on the sidewalk holding a gun that was pointed down at the ground,” Smith wrote. And he “shot without having warned [him] that such force would be used, and without observing any aggressive behavior.”

In dissent, Judge Clifford Wallace, a Nixon appointee, called the case “tragic. A boy lost his life, needlessly, as it turns out.” But the suit should be dismissed nonetheless. “The majority greatly understates the potential danger Andy posed as perceived by Deputy Gelhaus. [He] reasonably believed that Andy was carrying an AK-47,” he wrote.

Sonoma County appealed to the Supreme Court in Gelhaus vs. Lopez and said the recent ruling in the Tucson case calls for throwing out the suit against the deputy.

“No existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the ‘specific facts’ at issue here,” the county said. Its petition described “the specific situation” as “an individual apparently armed with an assault rifle refusing to drop a weapon. … An officer need not wait to be put in harm’s way before responding in defense of himself and the surrounding community … when confronting an assault weapon capable of spraying 30 bullets in seconds.”

The justices considered the appeal in their private conference on May 31 and relisted it for further consideration this past week. They could act on the case as soon as Monday.

If they deny the appeal, the parents’ suit would go to trial in Oakland. The court could agree to hear the case in the fall. Or the justices may reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision to allow the suit by citing their recent ruling in the Tucson case.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

FA Cup winners Crystal Palace upset Premier League champions Liverpool in English season opening Community Shield.

Crystal Palace twice came from behind to stun a new-look Liverpool and win the FA Community Shield for the first time on penalties after a 2-2 draw at Wembley.

New signings Hugo Ekitike and Jeremie Frimpong scored for the Premier League champions, but Palace responded through Jean-Philippe Mateta and Ismaila Sarr before winning an error-strewn shootout 3-2 on Sunday.

Mohamed Salah blazed over from the spot, while Alexis Mac Allister and Harvey Elliott were denied by an inspired Dean Henderson as Palace built on winning their first ever major trophy by beating Manchester City in May’s FA Cup final.

The traditional curtain-raiser to the English football season was given extra significance after a summer marked by tragedy for Liverpool.

Forward Diogo Jota was killed in a car accident alongside his brother Andre Silva.

Reds legend Ian Rush and Palace chairman Steve Parish laid wreaths on the side of the pitch before kickoff, while the Liverpool end was awash with banners and flags paying tribute to the Portuguese international.

A minute’s silence, however, had to be cut short due to disturbances in the crowd.

Jota’s death has dampened the excitement over Liverpool’s transfer spending spree to build on a squad that romped to a record-equalling 20th league title last season.

All four of their new signings at a cost of 260 million pounds ($350m) – Ekitike, Frimpong, Florian Wirtz and Milos Kerkez – started.

Ekitike’s role this season could depend on whether Liverpool are successful in their pursuit of Newcastle striker Alexander Isak.

But the Frenchman – signed from Eintracht Frankfurt last month for an initial 69 million pounds ($93m) – made his case to be Liverpool manager Arne Slot’s preferred number nine, no harm at all.

Wirtz also bagged his first assist for the Reds when Ekitike spun onto the German’s pass and fired into the far corner in just the fourth minute.

Palace were making their first-ever appearance in the fixture, but the Eagles again showed their ability to match one of the Premier League’s giants over 90 minutes.

Mateta missed a glorious chance to level when he failed to beat Alisson Becker one-on-one.

But from the rebound Sarr charged into the box and was tripped by an out-of-sorts Virgil van Dijk.

Mateta coolly sent Alisson the wrong way from the penalty spot to equalise.

Liverpool’s players were sporting a “Forever 20” emblem, referencing Jota’s now-retired shirt number, that they will wear all season.

The Liverpool fans had risen to chant Jota’s name as the game entered the 20th minute when their side retook the lead.

Frimpong’s chipped cross caught out Henderson and flew into the far corner.

Ekitike wasted a great chance for his second early in the second half from another Wirtz pass, as this time he fired over.

However, Slot’s new-look side are still to find the right balance between attack and defence, as has been evidenced during pre-season.

Palace were a constant threat with balls in behind the Reds defence and levelled again 13 minutes from time.

Sarr sped onto Adam Wharton’s through ball and calmly slotted past Alisson for his fourth goal in seven games against Liverpool.

Liverpool also survived a VAR review for a penalty against Mac Allister for handball before the match went to a shootout without extra time.

Youngster Justin Devenny was the unlikely hero as he blasted the winning spot kick high past Alisson, showing Salah, Mac Allister and Elliott how it is done.

View of SunSport’s Martin Lipton from Wembley

Penalties, then. But the longer that went on, the more likely Palace were to win it.

Credit to Glasner and his side.

They might have caved in with the way Liverpool started, boosted by that terrific Etitike opener.

But they refused to buckle, trusted in their game plan and got stronger and stronger as the match wore on.

Indeed, Mateta, set up by Richards, had a great chance to clinch it.

The disruption of the Jota “silence” was a black mark for the Palace fans. A huge one.

After that, though, they were relentless in creating a wall of noise, backing their team, slaughtering Uefa and Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis.

It was the palace supporters who created the atmosphere. Then again, Liverpool are used to this place. For Palace, it is still something new.

As is a shoot-out for a trophy.