Via Elaine Grossman, the Obama administration on January 11 sent a letter to Congress informing Members that it plans to pursue a case-by-case approach to civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries.

In other words, it appears that the administration does not plan to require that future agreements require recipients of U.S. nuclear assistance to forswear the ability to make their own nuclear fuel via the pursuit of enrichment and/or reprocessing capabilities, as the United Arab Emirates did in its 2009 agreement with the U.S.  

The administration has resumed negotiating nuclear trade deals with Jordan and Vietnam, which slowed in 2011 due to the Arab Spring and the Fukushima disaster.  My sense is that Jordan is likely to agree to something functionally equivalent to the UAE deal, though we'll have to wait and see for final confirmation.

We'll have more to say about the policy as more details become known and/or new cooperation agreements are reached, but as we've suggested to the administration before, we think they can do better than the policy on which they seem to have settled.  Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats in the House are calling for stronger oversight powers over new agreements that do not contain the highest nonproliferation standards, no small feat given the current political environment.

One more thing.  The administration letter to Congress argues that we need to negotiate deals "that open doors to U.S. industry," meaning that agreements with tough nonproliferation conditions could hurt the U.S. nuclear industry.  

It also notes that France and Russia are very aggressive in pursuing nuclear business worldwide, and offer terms that do not include stringent nonproliferation conditions.

Yet I fail to see how getting in a race to the bottom with France and Russia for nuclear business in Jordan, Vietnam, or worse, Saudi Arabia, would necessarily benefit the U.S. nuclear industry, to say nothing about U.S. nonproliferation goals.  

The U.S. has seen its comparative advantage in the trade of materials, reactors, etc. diminish to the point where it can no longer compete with countries such as France and Russia. Tougher nonproliferation conditions wouldn't be, to borrow a phrase from NBA Jam, the nail in the coffin because there are already so many nails in the coffin!

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, civilian nuclear cooperation (all tags)

Ulrika Grufman and I just published a piece on the status of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks over at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation website.  They're not going well.  We write:  

The current impasse is particularly frustrating given that the planned European missile defense architecture is not a threat to Russia’s deterrent (at least not yet). Meanwhile, the technical and financial foundations of the system are dubious at best. As four experts aptly put it: “The tragedy, if this confrontation results in a breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, is that almost nothing that anybody claims to be worrying about is real yet.”

We conclude that despite the lack of progress to date, the two sides must try to continue to work through their differences on this issue even if not much is likely to be accomplished in 2012 given Presidential elections in both the U.S. and Russia.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, Russia, Congress (all tags)

Last week I debuted as a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  I wrote my first column on the implications of the Supercommitee's failure for U.S. nuclear weapons policy.  Here's a taste:

Fortunately, scaling back plans for new and excessively large strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities makes both strategic and economic sense. While a fiscal crisis should not determine strategy, the threat of sequestration provides a long overdue opportunity to re-examine the outdated assumptions that require the United States to maintain approximately 5,000 nuclear weapons nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War. The price tag is not only unaffordable given today's budgetary constraints; it prevents the Pentagon from putting scarce resources toward higher priority programs that address 21st-century threats.

In the article I make the argument that by fundamentally revising U.S. nuclear deterrence requirements, the U.S. could save billions (even over the next decade) largely because there would no longer be a requirement to build as many new delivery systems as currently planned.

As an example, I described how the U.S. could still maintain a devastating deterrent in a more fiscally sustainable manner by building eight Ohio-class replacement submarines instead of 12 as currently planned.

According to a November 14 letter sent by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to Sens. McCain and Graham, delaying procurement of the new sub and reducing the buy from 12 to 10 subs would save $7 billion over the next decade.  Some NGO experts suggest that reducing the buy from 12 to 8 subs could save $27 billion over the next decade.

We could get a clearer sense of the exact cost of the new sub program (and by extension a clearer sense of potential savings) thanks to the final version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.  Section 242 of the bill requires the Navy and STRATCOM to prepare an unclassified report and cost assessment of options for the new sub.  Among other things, the report is to examine the procurement cost and total life-cycle costs associated with four different options: 12 subs with 16 missile tubes, 10 subs with 20 and 16 missile tubes, 8 subs with 20 missile tubes, and any other options deemed appropriate.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, Bulletin Column (all tags)

On December 12 the Senate and House Armed Services Committees filed the Conference report on the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.  Congress is expected to send the measure to the President's desk before the end of the year.  

We’ll have a more comprehensive summary out soon, but our early verdict on the bill’s nuclear weapons policy and missile defense provisions is that Senate and House conferees deserve credit for responsibly bridging the differences between the two versions of the bill.

The original House version of the defense bill (H.R. 1540) included many objectionable limitations on nuclear and missile defense policy matters that would 1) constrain the Pentagon’s ability to implement the New START treaty and 2) undercut the Constitutional authority of the President and senior military leaders to determine U.S. nuclear force structure and engage in discussions with the Russians on missile defense cooperation. The White House threatened to veto the final bill if it included such constraints. You can read our full analysis of the House version of the bill here.

In contrast the Senate bill (S. 1253) contained a number of reporting requirements on nuclear policy issues, but it does not impose policy or funding limitations. You can read our full analysis of the Senate versions of the bill here and here.

The Conference Committee report largely follows in the footsteps of the Senate bill.  It requires a number of reports and includes several Sense of Congress provisions, but it eliminates or significantly scales back the objectionable House provisions without compromising Congress’ important oversight responsibilities over U.S. nuclear policy.  

You can read the longer analysis here.

Read more

Nukes on a blog, Congress, New START (all tags)

Yesterday, the Senate voted 93-7 to approve the defense bill. Senate and House conferees will meet this month in conference to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill.  

The bill contains $527 billion for the basic Pentagon budget, $117 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion for Department of Energy, for a total of about $662 billion. The total authorization is $27 billion less than the President’s request and $43 billion less than enacted in Fiscal Year 2011.

Prior to passage yesterday, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent a package of 11 “non-controversial” amendments.  It also adopted other amendments by voice vote.  The Senate rejected two amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) to alter the controversial provisions on detainees in the bill, but later approved a compromise amendment offered by Sen. Feinstein by vote of 99-1 that would leave it to the Supreme Court to make the final decision on the constitutionality of holding American citizens in military custody. It is unclear if this compromise language will be enough to prevent the White House from vetoing the final version of the bill, as it threatened to do if the bill's original provision on detainees was not removed.  

The Senate also unanimously approved an amendment offered by Sens. Kirk (R-IL) and Menendez (D-NJ) that would call for sanctions on the Iran Central Bank.  Dozens of other amendments were either not voted on or withdrawn.  Prior to passage of the bill, Sen. Levin (D-MI) indicated that he plans to offer as separate legislation a package of 71 pending amendments to the bill that were objected to by Sen. Cornyn (R-TX).

In all, there were 382 amendments filed to the bill, but many were minor, many were non-germane and many faded away.

On the nuclear side, most of the amendments on the triad and the nuclear weapons complex we've been highlighting were not adopted and melted away.  The Senate adopted three Republican amendments on nuclear weapons and missile defense calling for reports. The amendments don't do anything other than require reports.

As the two sides prepare for conference, they will have to reconcile many differences on nuclear weapons and missile defense.  Recall that the House version of the bill contains many egregious amendments on nuclear policy.  The Senate version is devoid of such provisions.

What's next up on the Senate floor? Congressional Quarterly reported last night that as the House and Senate work to address the impending expiration of the current CR in mid-December, the Senate could turn back to the Energy and Water bill next week.  I've also been told that the House and Senate have already begun to conference this bill.  Stay tuned.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress (all tags)

Yesterday, the Senate voted 88-12 to invoke cloture on the defense bill. That means that many of the 380 amendments submitted will disappear.  By unanimous consent, the Senate adopted a package of about 40 “non-controversial” amendments.

One of these amendments was a Sessions (R-AL) modified amendment No. 1183 to require a report from the Administration if it proposes a change to nuclear force structure. By contrast, the earlier version of the amendment would have called on the U.S. to maintain the triad no matter what.  

The Senate also adopted other amendments by voice vote, including a Merkley (D-OR) amendment calling for an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Today the Senate is expected to continue debate and vote on two amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein dealing with controversial detainee provisions.  It is also scheduled to take up an amendment offered by Sens. Kirk (R-IL) and Menendez (D-NJ) that would call for sanctions on the Iran Central Bank. The Senate could vote on final passage of the bill as early as tonight.  Below is an updated list of key nuclear weapons related amendments that have either been submitted or are still pending.

Iran sanctions: Kirk (R-IL), Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) and others amendment No. 1084 to require the President to impose sanctions  on foreign institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank. Menendez (D-NJ) amendment No. 1292 is similar. Both these amendments have been withdrawn and there is a new amendment No. 1414 from both Senators.

Nuclear weapons triad: Hoeven (R-ND) , Tester (D-MT), Blunt (R-MO, Enzi (R-WY) and Vitter (R-LA) amendment No. 1279 supporting the triad and endorsing all three legs of the triad.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Barrasso (R-WY), Enzi (R-WY), Conrad (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) and Tester (D-MT) amendment No. 1307 requiring the U.S. to maintain all 450 ICBM’s in the force with the New START limit of 800 strategic launchers, including 420 on alert or operationally  deployed status, with any reductions to be taken equally from the three ICBM bases.

Sharing missile defense information with Russia:  Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), DeMint (R-SC) and Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1310 barring sharing classified missile defense technology with Russia.

Nuclear weapons complex funding: Corker (R-TN) amendment No. 1380 permitting the Defense Department to transfer funds to the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons activities up to the level authorized if the appropriations level is less than the authorized level. Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) has a similar amendment No. 1386 permitting the Secretary of State to transfer funding to the Department of Energy. Corker and Kyl combined to introduce amendment No. 1401 to permit the Secretary of Defense to transfer the funds. Kyl amendment No. 1453 also permits the Defense Department to transfer funds to the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons activities.

Support of nuclear weapons triad: Kyl (R-AZ)-Lugar (R-IN) sense of Congress amendment No. 1444 endorsing maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons triad of delivery systems,  maintaining robust nuclear weapons laboratories and providing full funding for these programs.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress (all tags)

This morning the Senate plans to vote on invoking cloture on the Defense Authorization Bill.  If the vote is successful, it will ease passage of the bill in the next few days.  About 380 amendments have now been submitted.  Chairman Levin said that a package of 35-40 “non-controversial” amendments is ready to be approved by unanimous consent, but the concerns of a couple of Senators held up passage.  Yesterday the Senate adopted two amendments by voice vote and rejected two amendments by recorded votes.

Below is an update on the list of the key amendments related to nuclear weapons policy that have either been submitted or are still pending, as prepared by Center Executive Director John Isaacs:

Iran sanctions: Kirk (R-IL), Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) and others amendment No. 1084 to require the President to impose sanctions  on foreign institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank. Menendez (D-NJ) amendment No. 1292 is similar. Both these amendments have been withdrawn and there is a new amendment No. 1414 from both Senators.

Nuclear weapons triad: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1183 to require the maintenance of all three legs of the nuclear weapons triad, those on land, at sea and in the air. Hoeven (R-ND) , Tester (D-MT), Blunt (R-MO, Enzi (R-WY) and Vitter (R-LA) have a similar amendment No. 1279 supporting the triad and endorsing all three legs of the triad.

Missile defense on the East Coast: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1185 to require a report on stationing missile defense on the East Coast.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Barrasso (R-WY), Enzi (R-WY), Conrad (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) and Tester (D-MT) amendment No. 1307 requiring the U.S. to maintain all 450 ICBM’s in the force with the New START limit of 800 strategic launchers, including 420 on alert or operationally  deployed status, with any reductions to be taken equally from the three ICBM bases.

Sharing missile defense information with Russia: Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), DeMint (R-SC) and Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1310 barring sharing classified missile defense technology with Russia.

Nuclear weapons complex funding: Corker (R-TN) amendment No. 1380 permitting the Defense Department to transfer funds to the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons activities up to the level authorized if the appropriations level is less than the authorized level. Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) has a similar amendment No. 1386 permitting the Secretary of State to transfer funding to the Department of Energy. Corker and Kyl combined to introduce amendment No. 1401 to permit the Secretary of Defense to transfer the funds.

Support of nuclear weapons triad: Kyl (R-AZ)-Lugar (R-IN) sense of Congress amendment No. 1444 endorsing maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons triad of delivery systems,  maintaining robust nuclear weapons laboratories and providing full funding for these programs.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress (all tags)

Before the Senate retired for Thanksgiving, Senators submitted over 275 amendments to the defense bill, only a very few of which have been considered. When the Senate returns on November 28, it will resume consideration of the bill.  Below is a list of the key amendments related to nuclear weapons policy, as prepared by Center Executive Director John Isaacs:

Iran sanctions: Kirk (R-IL), Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) and others amendment No. 1084 to require the President to impose sanctions  on foreign institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank. Menendez (D-NJ) amendment No. 1292 is similar.

Nuclear weapons triad: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1183 to require the maintenance of all three legs of the nuclear weapons triad, those on land, at sea and in the air. Hoeven (R-ND) , Tester (D-MT), Blunt (R-MO, Enzi (R-WY) and Vitter (R-LA) have a similar amendment No. 1279 supporting the triad and endorsing all three legs of the triad.

Missile defense on the East Coast: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1185 to require a report on stationing missile defense on the East Coast.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Barrasso (R-WY), Enzi (R-WY), Conrad (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) and Tester (D-MT) amendment No. 1307 requiring the U.S. to maintain all 450 ICBM’s in the force with the New START limit of 800 strategic launchers, including 420 on alert or operationally  deployed status, with any reductions to be taken equally from the three ICBM bases.

Sharing missile defense information with Russia:  Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), DeMint (R-SC) and Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1310 barring sharing classified missile defense technology with Russia.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress (all tags)

After a lot of moving and shaking over the past 48 hours, today the Senate will begin consideration of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (now S. 1867).  

The Senate was supposed to consider and hopefully complete action on the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354, but Majority Leader Reid pulled it from consideration and now plans to move to consideration of the defense bill.  It's doubtful that the bill will be completed before Thanksgiving, and Reid could bring back the Energy and Water bill if the defense bill hits a snag.

If the Energy and Water bill does get back to the floor, we'll be monitoring the fate of two amendments to increase NNSA's weapons activities account by about $321 million.  Recall that the Senate Appropriations Committee reduced the budget for this account by $440 million (or about 5.8%).  One amendment (offered by Begich, McCain, Vitter, and Shaheen) uses the Patriot/MEADS program as the offset, while the other (offered by Corker and Kyl) uses the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations account as the offset (something we suggested might happen).

In the meantime, in preparation for the Senate's consideration of the defense bill, head over to the mothership for our original and updated analysis of the Senate Armed Services Committee Version of the bill.  I say updated because earlier this week the Committee made some adjustments to the bill in order to cut about $20 billion from its original mark to conform with the lower (Budget Control Act-influenced) spending levels in the Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee also rewrote a controversial provision related to detainee policy which remains, well, controversial.

Get all that?

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Security Matters, Congress (all tags)

I’m a little late to this, but it looks as though Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the Air Force’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, recently had some interesting things to say about the B61 life extension program.  Here’s a summary, courtesy of Air Force Magazine:

No Wavering: The Air Force—and the United States—"remain committed" to providing aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons to support NATO's nuclear mission, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who oversees nuclear issues on the Air Staff. "There is nothing currently being considered to undo or change that commitment," said Chambers during a Capitol Hill speech on Oct. 28. "We are a nuclear alliance. We believe in the deterrent force. We are going to help provide that." However, some issues still are uncertain regarding that US force's future shape, he said. Decisions regarding the integration of a modernized version of the B61 nuclear bomb on the F-35 strike fighter have slipped to the right due to the F-35's overall schedule delays, said Chambers. "It is probably not" going to be resolved as part of the Pentagon's Fiscal 2013 to Fiscal 2017 budget program, he said. Further, there has been "no decision made yet" on the specific course of action for extending the B61's life, he said. Chambers later told reporters that the Air Force's current nuclear-capable aircraft for NATO—Europe-based F-15Es and F-16s—"remain very viable into the next decade and beyond. In fact, the F-15E will be viable with a nuclear-weapon-carrying capability into the mid 2030s." [emphasis mine].

Meanwhile, Inside Defense quoted Chambers as stating: “there are a lot of different ways to meet the requirements [for the B61 life extension program]. If there's money available to do a little more than the basic requirements, then that's been put on the table as well."

Contra Air Force Magazine’s headline, there does appear to be some wavering going on...  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, modernization, tactical nuclear weapons (all tags)