*All Options Are on the Table* Scraps - Ideas Lunch Edition

Jason Sigger skillfully critiques Elaine Grossman’s recent story on Pentagon counter-WMD efforts. His closing argument about the value of the military’s role is spot on. Yet I question whether elevating nuclear terrorism’s prominence in U.S. defense white papers and making the corresponding alterations to operational programs ought to be labeled “wasting assets” simply because we all agree that nuclear terrorism is less likely than other threats. It’s important to differentiate between the rhetorical flourishes of national security commentators (“Give me what I want on any issue under the sun or NUCLEAR TERRORISM!!!”), which understandably irk, and the actual allocation of resources (only two-tenths of one percent of U.S. security spending goes toward helping foreign governments stop the theft of nuclear materials). Is two-tenths of one percent wasted on protecting against a contingency that, were it to occur, would produce catastrophic consequences?

Max Bergmann bonks the notion that New START ratification can be de-politicized. Learn it, live it, love it: “[I]t makes little sense to pursue a ratification strategy that seeks to ‘de-politicize’ treaty ratification, when it is clear that treaty opponents will in fact aggressively politicize treaty ratification,” writes Bergman. Not to say that winning in Box #1 will be easy, of course.

The Stimson Center last week released its analysis of the FY 2011 international affairs budget request. There are big increases across the board.