In my May Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists column I explore the history of post-Cold War GOP efforts to constrain Democratic presidents from making reductions to the size of the US nuclear arsenal and how such efforts harm US national security. Here's the intro:

One of the perks of being a Republican president in the United States is the freedom to make drastic changes to US nuclear posture while Democratic presidents are forced to travel a much tougher road, often in the pursuit of far less ambitious goals. This pattern has been ongoing since the end of the Cold War and sadly continues unabated today. On May 9, the House Armed Services Committee wrote the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and Republican leaders used their majority to pass legislative provisions that will restrict and perhaps even block the Pentagon's ability to implement the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and prevent the president and senior military leaders from making future changes to the size and structure of the US nuclear arsenal. According to Republican Strategic Force Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner, "It’s not even clear that the unilateral reductions to U.S. nuclear forces required by the New START are in the interest of our national security. ... The president’s most recent budget, however, abandons the nuclear modernization funding he promised. This can only be described as bait and switch. The Senate has been deceived."

This overblown bluster, however, ignores a few basic realities: Spending on nuclear weapons has increased dramatically under President Obama, constraints on New START would restrict the military from fielding the most capable force possible, fewer weapons won't obviate deterrence, and preventing future nuclear force reductions would lock in an excessively large nuclear arsenal ill-suited to the current terrorist threat and to the current economic environment.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Column, Congress, nuclear weapons budget, nuclear guidance review (all tags)

House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner wants to force the United States to invest in a multi-billion dollar nuclear weapons research facility that it does not need, the $6+ billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The primary purpose of the CMRR-NF is to increase the capacity of the United States to produce the plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. During House Armed Services Committee’s May 9 markup of the defense bill, Turner successfully introduced two amendments that would take construction of the CMRR-NF out of the hands of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which says it can’t afford the facility and does not need it now, and require the Defense Department to build and pay for it. The amendments would also prevent NNSA or the Pentagon from considering less expensive plutonium sustainment strategies that do not include construction of the CMRR...

Read more

nuclear weapons budget, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee marked up the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Head over to the mothership for our initial summary.  If you thought last year’s version of the bill was bad, this year’s iteration includes a number of proposed funding proposals and policy provisions on nuclear weapons and missile defense that are even more extreme.

Click here, here, and here for our earlier previews of the bill.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, NDAA, nuclear weapons budget, Congress, nuclear guidance review (all tags)

I recently wrote for the May edition of Arms Control Today about North Korea's rocket launch.   Click here for the full piece.

Some highlights:

-"The launch, in effect, shattered a Feb. 29 deal made with the United States on halting all missile and nuclear activities."

-"Two days after the launch, Pyongyang rolled out what appeared to be new missiles in its military parade celebrating the 100th birthday of Kim Il Sung, the regime’s late founder. Some news reports initially speculated they were mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)... [but] specialists on North Korean missiles, however, have dismissed them as mock-ups. Attention quickly shifted to the vehicles carrying the missiles, amid suspicions that they came from China, North Korea’s main patron.” (Click Read More)

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, North Korea, rocket, nuclear test, Unha-3 (all tags)

Today House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon released his version of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Click here for the Chairman's mark, which includes detailed funding tables for national defense (function 050) spending.  

The Chairman's mark will serve as the basis for the full Committee markup on Wednesday, May 9. It will be supplemented by the subcommittee marks and whatever amendments are adopted to the individual marks and the Chairman's mark.

The Chairman's mark provides $554 billion for national defense (function 050). This is an increase of approximately $4 billion above the President's request and $8 billion above the Budget Control Act's FY 2013 cap on 050 spending. While Republicans decry the national debt and denounce unnecessary spending, HASC is proposing to add hundreds of millions of dollars to defense programs the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

Some highlights from the Chairman's mark re: nuclear weapons funding include:

-The mark authorizes $7.9 billion for NNSA weapons activities, an increase of $323 million above the FY 2013 requested level and the Senate and House Appropriations Committee approved levels. The purpose of the increase is to ensure that nuclear weapons spending keeps pace with the funding levels outlined in the Section 1251 report, which outlines the 10-year, $88 billion funding plan for NNSA weapons activities proposed by the administration in the context of the Senate's debate on the New START treaty.

-The mark authorizes $100 million for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos. The administration's budget request did not contain any funding for CMRR-NF due to its decision to delay construction of the facility for at least five years.

The five-year deferral of the CMRR will not compromise NNSA’s ability to maintain the stockpile as essential plutonium missions can be performed by the existing complex.

Referring to the delay to the CMRR, NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino testified to Congress in April that: “And the good news by all of this, frankly, is there are a number of options, a number of different paths that we can proceed. We are not hampered by saying the nation has to have a capability right now to make 50 or 80 pits per year in order to take care of the stockpile. That's great news for the country because we are not forced into making rash decisions on significant investments in a very short period of time. So we have time to evaluate this area.”

Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees supported the five-year delay to the facility in their marks of the FY 2013 Energy and Water bill in April. They are in agreement that NNSA can’t afford to build CMRR right now, an alternative to maintaining pit manufacturing and pit sustainment exists, and NNSA must demonstrate better project management when embarking on multibillion dollar construction projects.

It remains to be seen whether Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) will seek to further increase funding for CMRR in Committee on Wednesday, as the 1251 report included $300 million in projected funding for CMRR in FY 2013.

-The mark authorizes a $374 million increase above the requested level for Advanced Submarine System Development, the Pentagon research and development account that includes the program element which funds the Ohio-class replacement program. The Committee also authorized an additional $97 million above the request for the Ohio-class replacement reactor development program within the NNSA Naval Reactors account.  As we suspected, HASC appears bent on reversing the administration's proposed two-year delay to the Ohio-class replacement program.

-Finally, the mark authorizes $2.46 billion for NNSA's defense nuclear nonproliferation account, the same as the administration's request. The mark fully funds the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program. Recall that both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees increased funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Suffice it to say that HASC is prioritizing spending on weapons programs above spending on material security programs.

Stay tuned this space for full coverage of the HASC mark on Wednesday and reaction in the days afterward as the bill heads to the House floor next week.    

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, nuclear weapons budget, NDAA (all tags)

The landmark civil nuclear agreement that the two countries signed in 2008 was supposed to lead to tens of billions of dollars in business for U.S. companies that build nuclear power plants. But it has not yielded anything except a disagreement over who would be liable in the event of a nuclear accident.

The nuclear deal was seen as the cornerstone of the broader strategic partnership between the two nations. Both countries are wary of China’s growing influence, have fallen victim to Islamist extremism emanating from Pakistan and share a commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan.

But at the same time, each pursues its own independent strategic agenda. India’s unwillingness to join international sanctions against Iran — which New Delhi sees as an important oil supplier — and its reluctance to intervene in other countries’ internal affairs — in Libya and Syria,?for example — are among the many wrinkles in the relationship.

India’s decision in January to buy 126 fighter jets from France’s Rafale for $11 billion instead of its American competitors was a major disappointment in Washington, though high hopes persist for business between the world’s largest weapons buyer and many of the world’s largest defense contractors, based in the United States.

Trade between the two countries is growing fast and reached $100 billion in 2011, but it is dwarfed by trade with China and remains a fraction of what most people see as its long-term potential. Indian concerns about U.S. agricultural policies that subsidize farmers and restrict imports are matched by American concerns about market access and jobs being outsourced to India.

Simon Denyer, "Promise of U.S.-India economic partnership remains unfulfilled", Washington Post, May 3, 2012.

Glad reporters are noticing - we've been banging this drum for a while!

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, U.S.-India deal, quote of the day (all tags)

SEN. LEVIN: And there have been suggestions by some in Congress that we should deploy a ground based interceptor or interceptors on the East Coast of the United States, to defend the homeland against a possible future long range Iranian missile threat. Now, you're the combatant commander who establishes the requirements for homeland missile defense capability. Is there a requirement for deploying an East Coast GBI site? And are you seeking to deploy such a site on the East Coast?

Army General Charles Jacoby Jr., (Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command): Chairman, today's threats do not require an East Coast missile field and we do not have plans to do so.

Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Future Years Defense Program, March 13, 2012.

Recall that House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)  included a requirement in his mark of the defense bill that the Missile Defense Agency develop a plan for the deployment of missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States to be operational not later than the end of 2015.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, quote of the day (all tags)

Below are some handy charts we put together outlining the Senate and House Appropriations Committee-FY 2013 approved funding levels for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and Weapons Activities accounts. Click on the images for the full PDF of each chart. For out detailed analysis of the House and Senate bills, see here and here.

NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

NNSA Weapons Activities

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, nuclear terrorism, nuclear weapons budget (all tags)

So I'm a little late to the game on this, but last week Mitt Romney foreign policy adviser Ambassador Pierre Prosper dug up a familiar GOP attack on President Obama's missile defense policy:

You know Russia is another example where we give and Russia gets and we get nothing in return. The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia, yet Russia does nothing but obstruct us, or efforts in Iran and Syria.

Prosper's Czechoslovakia gaffe received most of the attention (apparently another Romney adviser referred to Russia as the Soviet Union during the same press call), but it wasn't even the biggest gaffe in the sentence. Regular readers now that we go crazy every time someone tries to rewrite the history of the transition from the Bush administration's proposed 3rd national missile defense site in Europe to the Phased Adaptive Approach.  As then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted last year:

And let's be blunt: The third site in Europe was not going to happen, because the Czech government wouldn't approve the radar....And so if it was going to happen at all, it would've taken years longer [than the Phased Adaptive Approach] and we still hadn't negotiated the required agreements with the Poles in terms of the interceptors.

And at last week's Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on missile defense, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy Brad Roberts tried to pull Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) back from the edge of the cliff when the good Senator started in the direction of the Romney campaign line:

Sir, when I assumed my responsibilities, my first briefing on European third site was that initial operational capability had slipped to 2018. At the same time, we'd also lost the support of the Czech government for the radar.

I'd like to think this would set the record straight, but the "Obama abandoned the Bush 3rd site to appease Russia" meme is immune to any evidence to the contrary.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense (all tags)

On April 26 the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and approved its version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Energy and Water bill. You can read the full Committee report here. For an overview of the House bill, see our analysis from last week here.

The Senate bill recommends $11.51 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $511 million above the FY 2012 appropriated level.  

Rightly unimpressed with the administration's underwhelming (to put it nicely) budget request for core nuclear material security programs, Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ranking Member Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) increased funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMPC) program by a combined total of $130 million over the request. House appropriators also increased funding for these programs, though not by nearly as much as the Senate.  In addition, the Senate removed the $150 request for USEC from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. Suffice it to say that bipartisanship is alive and well on Capitol Hill - at least when it comes to robust support for nuclear material security. The administration ought to think twice about submitting such an imbalanced request for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account in the future.

On the weapons side, the Committee, like the House, fully funded the administration's request of $7.577 billion, while expressing grave concern with NNSA's poor project management record. And like the House mark, the appropriation includes no funds for the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos. Together with the House appropriation, which also funds weapons activities at the requested level, the Senate mark provides a strong rejoinder to those who argue that the capabilities necessary to maintain the safety, security, and effectiveness of the stockpile are not being adequately funded. Indeed, it's striking that both the Senate and House provided increases to core nuclear terrorism prevention activities, which combat one of the most urgent national security threats to the United States, while funding weapons activities at the requested level.    

Below are some highlights of the Senate bill...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, nuclear terrorism, nuclear weapons budget (all tags)