With the Senate Armed Services Committee set to begin its mark up of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act tomorrow, head over to the mothership for a review and analysis of the nuclear weapons related provisions in the House version of the bill (H.R. 1540), both good and bad.  

Read more

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

The ink is barely dry on the New START treaty, and Russia has nearly met the 2018 deadline for reductions.

On June 1 the State Department released a fact sheet detailing the aggregate numbers for the strategic nuclear weapons limited by the treaty.  

New START limits the U.S. and Russia to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles (long-range missiles and bombers), and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers (long-range missile tubes, missile silos, and bombers).  Each side has until 2018 to meet these limits.

According to the fact sheet, as of February 5, 2011, Russia had 1,537 deployed strategic warheads, 521 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, and 865 deployed and non-deployed launchers.  The United States had 1,800 deployed strategic warheads, 882 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, and 1,124 deployed and non-deployed launchers.  This means that Russia has already met two of the treaty’s three limits eight years early.

The numbers come from the first exchange of data between the U.S. and Russia, which occurred on March 22, 2011, 45 days after entry into force of the treaty.  The data is current as of February 5, 2011 (the date of entry into force) and will be updated every six months until the treaty’s expiration.

What do these numbers count?  What do they mean?  Below are some brief responses to these and other questions.  For additional analysis, read these excellent posts by Hans Kristensen and Tom Collina.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Keith Payne (all tags)

As we noted last week, the White House threatened to veto the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act if it included two provisions offered by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) in Committee that would delay implementation of the New START treaty and constrain the President's ability to make changes to U.S. nuclear doctrine.

Rep. Turner issued the following in response to the White House veto threat:

Lastly, I would like to note that earlier today the President issued a veto threat on several provisions contained in the NDAA related to nuclear modernization and objections to provisions relating to missile defense. This is curious because these provisions are consistent with the administration's own stated policies and that of our NATO allies. By this threat, is the President saying he does not intend to implement the nuclear modernization guarantees that were part of the New START Treaty? Does the President intend to unilaterally withdraw nuclear forces from Europe? Does the President want to share sensitive data of missile defense technology with Russia? And does the President intend to strike deals with Russia to limit our missile defense capabilities? If the answer to these questions is no, then the administration should have no objections to these provisions. If, on the other hand, the answer to these questions is yes, then it is all the more reason to make these provisions law.

The initial legislation (H.R. 1750) upon which these provisions are based was so poorly written that Rep. Turner was forced to rewrite and amend it both in Committee and on the floor, lest the Department of Energy be prevented from dismantling weapons already slated for destruction and performing essential activities necessary to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear weapons.  As one colleague put it to me, Turner's response to the veto threat is akin to receiving an "F" on an exam and blaming the teacher for grading it.

These egregious errors reflect a fundamental lack of seriousness and suggest that Turner's intent is not to solidify the commitments made during the Senate's consideration of New START as he claims, but rather to draw out implementation of New START for as long as possible and prevent the President from making any more changes to U.S. nuclear policy so long as he remains in office.   It should surprise no one that the administration's is threatening to veto the bill if it includes such measures.

Read more

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

Earlier today the Office of Management and Budget released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540), which is being debated on the House floor this week.  The SAP supports passage of the bill, but express serious reservations about a number of provisions, including four ugly sections on nuclear policy.  The White House threatens to veto the bill if two of these sections are included in the final version:

Limitations on Nuclear Force Reductions and Nuclear Employment Strategy: The Administration strongly objects to sections 1055 and 1056, which impinge on the President’s authority to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In particular, section 1055 would set onerous conditions on the Administration’s ability to implement the Treaty, as well as to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons. Among these conditions is the completion and operation of the next generation of nuclear facilities, which is not expected until the mid-2020s. The effect of this section would be to preclude dismantlement of weapons in excess of military needs. Additionally, it would significantly increase stewardship and management costs and divert key resources from our critical stockpile sustainment efforts and delay completion of programs necessary to support the long-term safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent. Further, section 1056 raises constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to set nuclear employment policy – a right exercised by every president in the nuclear age from both parties. If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.

Them's fighting words! For more information on these two sections, see here and here. The White House also objects to the sections of the bill on missile defense cooperation with Russia and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.  

Nick Roth and Stephen Young note over at All Things Nuclear that Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), the Dr. Strangelove behind the effort to undermine U.S. nuclear security, has offered a floor amendment that would alter Section 1055 to permit the retirement/dismantlement of warheads if it is “determined by the Secretary of Defense to be necessary to ensure the continued safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.”  This shouldn't change anyone's negative opinion of the amendment, but at least Turner agrees that it was poorly written.

Read more

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

Here at the Center/Council we follow Congress and national security issues very closely.  So naturally we put together a summary of the important and controversial provisions and amendments from the House Armed Services Committee's mark of the Defense Authorization bill last week.  If you want to read the full text of the bill and report you can do so here.

A Review of the House Version of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill

By a vote of 60 to 1, the House Armed Services Committee approved $553 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, a 4.1% increase over appropriations for FY 2011, along with an additional $118 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, matching the administration’s request on both counts.

The full House is expected to consider the bill the week of May 23. Many of the provisions listed below may be challenged on the House floor.

(More below the jump)

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, missile defense, nuclear terrorism, Congress (all tags)

Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee marked up (i.e. wrote) the Fiscal Year National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  As was the case last year, Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) led the charge in offering risky amendments that could undermine American nuclear policy.  Capitalizing on the new Republican majority in the House, the amendments adopted this year were even more extreme than last year.  

This defense bill is scheduled to be debated on the House floor the week of May 23.

During the strategic forces section of the mark up the committee addressed (by my count) a total of 13 amendments.  Two of these amendments were accepted by voice vote, three were withdrawn, two were accepted without any debate, one was defeated on a voice vote, and five particularly controversial amendments were approved almost entirely by party line roll call votes.  

One of the amendments on ground based midcourse defense system prompted two GOP defections.  

Democrats on the committee made a valiant effort to talk some sense into their GOP colleagues, but their ears were closed.

It seems that Republicans on the committee have a love affair with nuclear weapons.  They find even modest treaties that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support difficult to accept, and want to prevent further nuclear weapons cuts.

Republicans yesterday kept using the figure of 1,550 U.S. nuclear weapons. That is the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons allowed by the New START Treaty, but in fact as of 2010 the U.S. retains a total of 5,113 nuclear bombs, almost all of which are much larger than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and can destroy a city.

Many of the Republican amendments were drawn from a bill introduced by Rep. Turner on May 5 known as the New START Implementation Act – which should more aptly be described as the New START Undermining Act.  

According to Turner, the purpose of the bill (H.R. 1750; full text here) is to hold the Obama administration accountable to the long-term commitments it made on modernization and missile defense during the Senate’s consideration of the New START treaty and limit the administration’s ability to pursue nuclear weapons reductions below New START levels.  

Senator Kyl plans to introduce his own version of H.R. 1750 in the Senate soon.  

Turner’s bill contains many egregious provisions, the most harmful of which is the section containing limitations on the implementation of New START and potential future nuclear reductions even if such reductions would strengthen U.S. national security.  The clear intent of the provision is to interfere with the Pentagon’s ability to implement the New START treaty and undercut the authority of the President and senior military leaders to determine U.S. nuclear policies…

Read more

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

By Kingston Reif and Jessica Estanislau

In a speech to Global Zero delegates in Washington last weekend, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher issued a stirring defense of the importance of nuclear transparency:

Other countries need to be transparent and as open as we are to provide confidence for deep reductions. Our actions show that transparency and security can go together. Secrecy may sometimes be necessary, but it also can lead to misunderstandings, miscalculations, and mistrust.

Undersecretary Tauscher is right: U.S. steps such as the declassification of the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile at last spring’s NPT Review Conference and the entry into force of the New START treaty and its new and improved data exchange, monitoring, and verification provisions are essential to progress on arms control and nonproliferation.  Why then is the Obama administration hesitant to make public information about U.S. nuclear forces that it has made publicly available in the past?...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START (all tags)

Friday was the one-year anniversary of the signature of the New START treaty.  I didn’t have any vodka around to celebrate with so I drank some Scotch instead.

If you’ve already forgotten the treaty’s tumultuous yet momentous path through the U.S. Senate, you can (re)read my take here.  

Since the treaty entered into force in early February, the two sides have made their first data exchange and began exhibitions (the Russians had a look at a U.S. B-1 bomber, and U.S. had a look at the Russian RS-24 ICBM).  And as of April 5, each side is now allowed to begin on-site inspections.  

The implementation of the treaty seems to be moving ahead smoothly, but for some reason the U.S. and Russia think it’s an awesome idea not to release either aggregate numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles or a much more detailed Memorandum of Understanding, both of which were available under START I.  That makes about as much sense as counting on Brett Favre to lead your team to the Super Bowl (see for here for examples). Look for more on this from NoH soon.

Last week in the International Herald Tribune, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov called on Washington and Moscow to build on the momentum created by New START “and take new actions to reduce nuclear risk and shape a safer world.”  

They propose four next steps, the first being the initiation of early negotiations to further reduce each sides arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to 1,000 apiece.  While these negotiations proceed, Albright and Ivanov suggest that the U.S. and Russia reach the treaty’s limits of 1,550 deployed (New START accountable) warheads and 700 deployed delivery vehicles by 2014 or 2015, well before the implementation deadline of 2018.  They also note that since the number of Russia’s deployed nuclear forces is expected to fall well below the 1,550 deployed delivery vehicle limit, the U.S. should reduce to 1,300 deployed warheads, so long as Russia does not build up above that number.

These are all very sensible steps that in principle the U.S. shouldn’t think twice about taking.  But expect Republicans in Congress to throw up every roadblock possible to prevent this from happening.  Moreover, the military will also have to be brought on board.  As of now they don’t appear to be planning for early implementation of New START – to say nothing about reducing below New START levels.

For example, last week Rear Admiral Terry Benedict told the Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee that the Navy is planning to reduce the number of New START accountable SLBM tubes on Ohio-class SSBNs from 24 to 20 beginning in FY 2015, and that they expect this process to take about two years.   FY 2015 plus two years gets you pretty close to the implementation deadline of 2018. It's understandable that the military wouldn't be pushing an accelerated schedule on its own.

But does this schedule have to be set in stone?  It will take direction from the President and support from the Pentagon in response to that direction to reach the New START limits ahead of schedule. The Pentagon's support will be easier to come by if early implementation saves money. 

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START (all tags)

Fresh off his failure to defeat the New START treaty, last week Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) organized a letter signed by 40 other Republican Senators warning President Obama that he must consult with Congress before altering nuclear weapons guidance to allow for deeper reductions below New START levels.  

Senator Kyl is right that the Senate should be consulted on these issues, as it was throughout the formulation of the Nuclear Posture Review and during the New START negotiations.  However, the letter is a transparent attempt to obstruct the President’s authority to issue new guidance and engage in future negotiations with the Russians.  

Last year Republicans on the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee succeeded in attaching an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would have placed limitations on the President’s ability to negotiate and implement reductions in U.S. nuclear forces below New START levels.  A significantly watered down version of the provision is included in the final version of the FY 2011 defense bill.  Kyl’s letter likely presages continued Republican efforts to impose legislative constraints on the President’s flexibility to determine appropriate U.S. force levels during the upcoming mark ups of the FY 2012 Defense Authorization Bill.

Kyl of course will not support further reductions under any circumstances.  But a key near term goal for the administration and its supporters should be to encourage other GOP signatories of the letter, including some Senators who supported New START, to keep an open mind about the next steps in U.S. nuclear policy.  Such outreach must include substantive responses to the age-old canards raised in the letter…  

Read more

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

The residents of Nevada County California woke up yesterday morning to an op-ed on New START's recent entry into force by yours truly.  I'm sure it changed their lives.  Here's an excerpt:

In a political climate paralyzed by partisanship on other issues, the bipartisan vote of approval for New START demonstrates that it's possible for Senators to put aside political differences in the name of the national interest. This bodes well for the Senate's successful consideration of future national security issues, including the crisis in Egypt.

Nuclear weapons may have protected us during the Cold War, but today we live in a different time and face new dangers. Massive nuclear arsenals are useless against contemporary threats like terrorism, and they do not prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other states. In the 21st century, reducing nuclear stockpiles, securing vulnerable nuclear materials, and banning nuclear testing will be the hallmarks of a more secure world.

New START is an important part of this effort, but it is only the beginning. The United States and Russia should take advantage of the momentum created by the approval of New START to push ahead on reductions in all types of nuclear warheads as soon as possible.

These next steps will not be easy. Opponents will be tempted to play politics with national security, as they did with New START. But the alternative is a more dangerous world.

 You can read the whole thing here.  

Read more

New START, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)