"False artillery emplacements, built with stones and branches, are seen along the waterfront of the Yalu River on the North Korean side, opposite the town of Hekou, China on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)"

For the full photo series, click here. ]]> http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2010/3/12/154250/318 Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:42:50 -0000 http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2010/3/11/154341/064 In a move partially designed to one-up the Democrats, House Republicans voted today to impose a one-year moratorium on all earmarks, not just those to for-profit companies.  The ban, approved by voice vote, would apply not only to appropriations bills but also to authorizing and tax measures.

“Yay!” you say? “One of my biggest fears was yet another earmark for the C-17 or the F-35 extra engine!”

Not so much – It looks as if the so-called ban on added spending may be full of holes. The Hill notes that:

… billions added to the defense bills for existing national security programs under contract with major defense companies such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman probably would not be affected.

For example, when House appropriators add more funds for Boeing’s C-17 cargo aircraft, they do not disclose them as earmarks. Instead, they are considered programs essential to national security even though none of the funds are requested by the Pentagon. These funds benefit lawmaker districts where the weapons systems are built.

Further, the Senate does not look to be on board with any current plan for a ban on earmarks. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, and champion of the C-17, Daniel Inouye has already begun to fight back, remarking that the action was not in the “best interest of the Congress or the American people.”

Today’s announcement is a shrewd political move for a House that has recently been plagued by controversy and talk of corruption, but bears little weight. Congress will not be fighting any tigers in the near future.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, the total defense budget has grown from $432 billion in FY01 to $720 billion in FY11, a real increase of approximately 67 percent. The Pentagon’s base budget, which excludes war and nuclear weapons funding, has also grown steadily over the last decade, increasing from $390 billion in FY01 to $540 billion in FY11, a real increase of 38 percent.

See the full analysis here.

On February 5, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev approved the text of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (available in the original Russian here).  The new doctrine had been the subject of some concern before its publication (including from yours truly), following an interview with the secretary of the Russian Security Council in which he suggested that the document would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in “local” conflicts.  Thankfully the new military doctrine outlines a far more circumscribed role for nuclear weapons than the secretary had indicated...

The military doctrine states that Russia reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons:

…In response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat (Paragraph 22).

The doctrine also declares that:

In the event of the outbreak of a military conflict involving the utilization of conventional means of attack (a large-scale war or regional war) and threatening the very existence of the state, the possession of nuclear weapons may lead to such a military conflict developing into a nuclear military conflict (Paragraph 16).

A regional war is envisioned as a significant conflict, involving naval, air, and space assets and possibly coalitions of states.  A large-scale conflict is described as “a war between coalitions of states or major world community states in which the sides would be pursuing radical military-political objectives.”  Neither sort of conflict would correctly describe the August 2008 war with Georgia, which would best fit the doctrine’s definition of a local war:  “a war between two or more states, with limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the warring states and affects primarily the interests of only those states” (Paragraph 6).  

Though the doctrine limits the use of nuclear weapons to broader conflicts, it is clear that Russia considers them essential to its fundamental security.  As Medvedev said at a March 5 meeting with officials from the Ministry of Defense:

First, today we have no need to further increase the capacity of our strategic deterrence.  However, the possession of nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for maintaining Russia's independent policy for the preservation of its sovereignty, a policy aimed at supporting peace and preventing any military conflict, as well as the resolution of post-conflict situations.

The doctrine also names the “comprehensive equipping (re-equipping) of the strategic nuclear forces with modern models of armaments, military and specialized equipment” (Paragraph 41) as the first task under ‘Equipping the Armed Forces.’  In this vein, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on March 1 seemed to call for a new strategic bomber, saying that Russia “…Must consider and begin to work on an advanced long-range aircraft, on our new strategic weapons-carrier” (Russian text here).

The new doctrine also includes a specification that was not present in the 2000 document, years before the tandem nature of Russia’s current executive branch emerged.  If anyone was wondering whether Medvedev or Putin would call the nuclear shots (despite the Russian president’s constitutional description as commander-in-chief of the armed forces), the doctrine specifies that “The decision to utilize nuclear weapons is made by the president of the Russian Federation.”

Cole Harvey is a Research Associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Voting Information

•    Mr. Dicks has a liberal Congressional voting record.  He voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 99.3% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Dicks did not vote.

•    The differences usually occur on defense spending and foreign policy issues, where he is often more hawkish than the party norm.

•    On Council for a Livable World’s PeacePAC voting record, he scored:
50% in 2008
90% in 2007
41% in 2005-6
82% in 2003-4
44% in 2001-2
29% in 1999-2001
63% in1997-8

•    While he has supported higher military spending, he has also been a supporter of nuclear arms control measures and is a long-time skeptic of national missile defense.

On Defense / Military Affairs

•    Dicks was a key proponent for the ($2 billion per plane) B-2 bomber.  He successfully ensured money was set aside for the B-2 in the 1995 defense appropriations bill.

•    Dicks led select committee investigations into 1998 charges that China had been an illegal recipient of US satellite technology.  His report found China to be guilty, with a subsequent report authored by him also alleging that China had stolen significant America nuclear secrets over a 20 year period.

•    An early supporter of the Iraq War, by 2005 Dicks u-turned and claimed that he wouldn’t have supported the invasion had he not believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.  

•    In 2003, Dicks was a supporter of the sharply increased $379 billion defense budget – nearly $50 billion higher than that of 2002.  Despite the large increase, Dicks asserted that yet more money was needed urgently to modernize US military hardware.

•    Dicks was one of the most vocal critics of the U.S Air Force’s 2008 decision to purchase in-air refueling tankers produced by Northrop Grumman and EADS.  He was, and remains, a strong supporter of Boeing’s alternative model.  Boeing has a huge presence in Dick’s district.   After EADS won the contract, Dicks supported Boeing’s protest with the Government Accountability Office, which cited serious flaws in the acquisition process and called for a reversal of the decision.  As of March 2010, the deal remains unsettled.

•    Dicks is a strong supporter of funding for Boeing’s C-17 cargo aircraft produced by Boeing.

•    Dicks is also a congressional supporter for Boeing’s Airborne Laser Missile Defense program.  He signed a letter to Defense Secretary Gates in 2009 requesting a commitment to the program.  Congress appropriated roughly $400 million for the program in FY 2009.  Norman Dick’s support for Boeing related projects has not historically been as cast-iron as one might think.  He was neither supportive for the Army’s former ‘Future Combat Systems’ program or for ground-based missile defense.  Of the latter, he claimed that ‘the program has not yet met the criteria that Congress and the Administration established to demonstrate the technical capability of a system to defend the U.S. against incoming long-range ballistic missiles."

•    In terms of industries, lobbyists have been Dick’s largest contributors.  Lawyers, defense aerospace, and defense electronics have ranked his second to fifth biggest financial donors.  

•    Defense contractors Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, SAIC Inc., Raytheon, and BAE Systems all are among his top defense contributors.

...

The United States and Russia maintain over ninety percent of the world’s approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond.

...

The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that “terrorist use of a nuclear weapon against the United States or its friends and allies is more likely than deliberate use by a state.” Our priority, therefore, should be to work together with Russia to reduce the size and vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals, and ensure that proper security and surveillance safeguards are in place.

...

I am encouraged that efforts to negotiate a START follow-on agreement have bipartisan support among national security experts. Notably, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, headed by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, endorsed a follow-on agreement to START. Similarly, Secretary Perry joined with former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the extension of the key provisions of START and further reductions in our nuclear stockpile.

Statement for the Record in Support of a Follow-on Agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)

Senator Russ Feingold
March 9, 2010

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of our administration’s efforts to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Our negotiating team in Vienna is currently working with the Russian delegation to finalize this agreement, and I look forward to reviewing the treaty when it is submitted to the Senate.

The United States and Russia maintain over ninety percent of the world’s approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond.

It is in the national security interest of the United States to reach an agreement with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and ensure that strong verification and transparency measures remain in effect. This is the core purpose and focus of the START follow-on agreement.

The START follow-on agreement is an important component of our efforts to work with Russia and other international partners to collectively address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. These dangers include the vulnerability of nuclear material to theft by terrorists, as well as the risk of nuclear proliferation by other countries.

Ratification of a START follow-on agreement would also be a clear signal that the United States is upholding our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would reaffirm our leadership on nonproliferation issues and demonstrate, as the President has advocated, that we are serious about moving towards a world without nuclear weapons while maintaining a reliable deterrent for so long as it is needed. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity; without a demonstrated effort to fulfilling our nonproliferation responsibilities through a new START agreement, it will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to secure the international support needed to address the urgent security threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that “terrorist use of a nuclear weapon against the United States or its friends and allies is more likely than deliberate use by a state.” Our priority, therefore, should be to work together with Russia to reduce the size and vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals, and ensure that proper security and surveillance safeguards are in place.

Unfortunately, today Russia continues to possess huge stores of nuclear materials that are inadequately secured and which, if stolen by terrorists, could be used to destroy an American city. The size of our own nuclear arsenal is also unsustainable, both from a security and cost perspective, and should be tailored to the new twenty-first century threats we face.

The reductions required by the START follow-on agreement will not adversely affect our national security. The United States could pursue much deeper reductions in the size of our arsenal and still have more weapons that we would ever need. In fact, it is precisely the size of our nuclear arsenal and complex that make them vulnerable to exploitation by terrorists. There is no longer any compelling national security reason to maintain or expand the size of our nuclear stockpile.

Nor is there any reason to continue to develop new nuclear weapon technologies or warheads. Our brightest experts have concluded that we no longer need new nuclear weapons in order to maintain a credible deterrent. A recent report from the independent JASON Defense Advisory Group concluded that, as a result of our nuclear laboratories’ successful life-extension programs, the lifetimes of our nuclear warheads can be extended for decades.

I am encouraged that efforts to negotiate a START follow-on agreement have bipartisan support among national security experts. Notably, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, headed by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, endorsed a follow-on agreement to START. Similarly, Secretary Perry joined with former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the extension of the key provisions of START and further reductions in our nuclear stockpile.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to commend the administration for its efforts to reinvigorate the nonproliferation regime by negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty. We must act now to address the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, which is one of the gravest dangers facing the United States. In a time of terrorism and of rising international concern about Iran’s nuclear program, international cooperation remains key to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The START follow-on agreement is an essential step towards that goal, and towards a world without nuclear weapons.

The congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which outlines U.S. nuclear strategy, forces, and readiness, has been delayed until, at the earliest, the second half of this month.  According to a senior administration official, the review will call for “dramatic reductions in the stockpile,” a “greater role for conventional weapons in deterrence” and ruling out the need for low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons capable of penetrating underground targets.  

While this is very encouraging news, there is still some concern that the new NPR will not go far enough towards achieving President Obama’s goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Reports have indicated that early drafts of the Nuclear Posture Review fell short of the transformational vision put forth by the President in Prague.  Here’s to hoping that when he makes his final decisions on the review, President Obama will take his cues from the rapidly growing Global Zero movement rather than those who may be urging him not to stray too far from the status quo…

Global Zero was launched in Paris in December of 2008.  Its declaration states “that to protect our children, our grandchildren and our civilization from the threat of nuclear catastrophe, we must eliminate all nuclear weapons globally.”  The initial movement gathered 100 global leaders to establish a phased, verifiable plan to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide.  

Both President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have committed themselves to the movement.  President Medvedev made headlines last week when he announced that “Global zero is a beautiful idea but, as you'll understand, this idea can only be reached as a result of concerted work by all nuclear states.”

In addition to Obama and Medvedev, Queen Noor of Jordan, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Ambassador Richard Burt have emerged as leading advocates of the Global Zero movement.  Queen Noor was bold enough to make an appearance on the “Colbert Report” in support of Global Zero.  

At Global Zero’s February 2010 Paris Summit, participants ranged from Michael Douglas to Hans Blix.  U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher delivered remarks.  Opening day statements were made by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Ban Ki-moon.

While the Global Zero declaration boasts a score of high profile signatories from all corners of the globe and all ranges of the political spectrum, their philosophy also depends on strong grassroots support. A recent poll of 21 countries found that global public opinion strongly favors the elimination of all nuclear weapons according to a timetable: 76 percent of respondents across all countries polled favor such an agreement. In an effort to capitalize on this support, Global Zero is seeking to open chapters at universities across the planet and is actively trying to reach out to new supporters via new media mediums such as Twitter and Facebook.

Despite the broad base of support for a world without nuclear weapons, recent leaks of the potential contents of the new NPR suggest that a meaningful shift from Cold War thinking could be unlikely in some areas.  Jeffrey Lewis blogged on Arms Control Wonk that the review will likely “fall far short of the President’s rhetoric in Prague,” resulting in a “very conventional document.”  Several leading Democrats fear the review could retain ambiguous wording regarding the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Global Security Newswire recently published an article under the headline “U.S. Seen Ruling Out ‘No First Use’ Nuke Policy,” citing internal divisions within the administration.

President Obama should not be timid in crafting a meaningful overhaul of nuclear thinking, especially given the support from and strength of the Global Zero movement.  77 percent of Americans have voiced their support for the phased, verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, and our country’s nuclear posture should establish a platform upon which this vision can begin to be realized.