By Kingston Reif and Nick Roth

The Nuclear Posture Review took a beating at yesterday's full House Armed Services Committee mark of the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5136).

By the slim margin of 30-28, Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), the Jon Kyl of the House, secured support for a sense of congress amendment proclaiming that the Nuclear Posture Review weakens U.S. national security by taking options off the table to respond to a catastrophic nuclear, chemical, biological, or conventional attack.  Needless to say, the optics of having the House Armed Services Committee on record as saying that the President's Nuclear Posture Review damages U.S. national security is not helpful.

When it was all said and done, there was a lot of action on the Strategic Force part of the bill.  Two en bloc amendments passed and four additional Republican amendments, including the Turner amendment on nuclear use, were offered.  The administration's request for nonproliferation programs was considered as part of the general provisions part of the mark, and was fully funded by the Committee.

See below for some more detail and additional thoughts on yesterday's proceedings.  HASC's summary of the full mark can be found here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, New START, missile defense, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

NoH has been arguing for some time that given the delivery vehicle range outlined in the Joint Understanding last July, together with the slow trickle of news that the new treaty would likely contain simpler conversion and elimination rules, the U.S. wouldn’t have to make any significant changes to its current nuclear force structure (long live the triad!) or chop up systems that have been converted to conventional-only roles.

Now that the treaty text and protocol have been released, the amount of flexibility (and by extension the hedge against uncertainty) that the treaty allows for is truly astounding.

Of course, this won’t stop some critics from saying that the treaty could endanger the triad, that it disproportionately benefits Russia - since the deployed number of Russian delivery vehicles is anticipated to drop dramatically with or without a new arms control agreement - and/or that it limits U.S. prompt global strike capabilities.

Indeed, Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who has made ensuring that the triad remains inviolable a kind of pet project of his, flight tested some of these arguments at last Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Nuclear Posture Review.  Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jim Miller and STRATCOM Commander Kevin Chilton were having none of it, however, and their responses are worth quoting at length…  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

Perhaps this is what the authors of the NPR had in mind when they said that “the United States is therefore not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons.”

Or as a colleague put it: "Is anyone else really hopeful about living to see the day that [sic] a Nuclear Posture Review makes an argument about needing reserve nuclear weapons to hedge against extrageopolitical surprise."

______________________________

Stay home ET. UK scientist: Aliens may pose risks

The Associated Press
Monday, April 26, 2010; 7:42 AM

LONDON -- British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.

Hawking claims in a new documentary that intelligent alien lifeforms almost certainly exist, but warns that communicating with them could be "too risky."

The 68-year-old scientist says a visit by extraterrestrials to Earth would be like Christopher Columbus arriving in the Americas, "which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."

He speculates most extraterrestrial life will be similar to microbes, or small animals - but adds advanced lifeforms may be "nomads, looking to conquer and colonize."

The Discovery Channel said Sunday it will broadcast "Stephen Hawking's Universe" in Britain next month.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

Travis got this ball rolling last week, but we've put together a longer list of what some folks with some pretty serious credibility on national security issues have been saying about the NPR and New START.  And it don't exactly mix and match with what some of our good friends on the right have been saying.  Read the whole thing below the jump.  Here are a few excerpts:

“The chiefs and I fully support the findings of this nuclear posture review, because we believe it provides us and our field commanders the opportunity to better shape our nuclear weapons posture, policies and force structure to meet an ever-changing security environment….Even while it reduces the role played by nuclear weapons – a reduction I wholly endorse – this Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms our commitment to defend the vital interests of the United States and those of our partners and allies with a more balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we have at our disposal today.”

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Press Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, April 6, 2010

“The Russians may issue a statement saying that they have the right to withdraw if we deploy defenses to threaten the strategic balance.  They issued such a statement in 1991; we issued a statement right back and both of them went into the dustbin of history.  I think it would be – it is for the Senate to decide whether this treaty deserves ratification.  I think it does.  It would be tragic if we allowed Russian statements made for domestic purposes to derail it. [T]here is no restriction in START with regard to our missile defense capability.”

Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Press Briefing on Understanding New START and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 9, 2010

“There’s a particularly important point that I think will strengthen us for the future under the NPR.  It’s something I’ve advocated for in the past, and this is the funding that is, and the commitment to funding and the focus on improving the nuclear enterprise under NNSA; this will truly strengthen the deterrent, not only for today but for 20, 30, 40 years from now.  And the NPR’s endorsement of that I think is one of the most important aspects of that for strengthening our deterrence posture for the future.”

General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review, missile defense, validators (all tags)

Stepping back from the past few frantic days on nuclear weapons issues, it is useful to realize how much has been accomplished. The last two weeks have arguably been the two most eventful weeks on reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons since the advent of the nuclear age.

• On March 29, President Obama, together with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, announced that the U.S. and Russia had reached agreement on the “New START” nuclear reductions treaty.

• On April 6, the United States released the results of a year-long review of nuclear weapons, called the Nuclear Posture Review.

• On April 8, Presidents Barack Obama and Dimitry Medvedev signed New START in Prague, Czech Republic.

• On April 12-13, the President convened leaders of 47 countries to agree on steps needed to secure and safeguard vulnerable nuclear materials and to cope with the worldwide terrorist threat.

Critics will point to shortcomings in the treaty, the nuclear review and the Washington summit. The millennium has not come and nuclear weapons will not disappear the day after tomorrow. Iran and North Korea continue to break the rules. There remain about 23,000 nuclear weapons across the globe, most much larger than those used against Japan in 1945.

But there has been significant forward movement that had been lacking over the past two decades...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review, Nuclear Security Summit (all tags)

Travis fired up an op-ed in today's Washington Times responding to some of the hysterical whining on the right that the NPR and the Prague Treaty will compromise the U.S. nuclear deterrent.  Note to Travis: Mad props on convincing the Times to let you use "the Prague Treaty" instead of "New START".

The key grafs:

Yet some like to ignore Mr. Obama's commitment to preserve U.S. nuclear deterrence for as long as is necessary. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle accused the Obama administration of adopting an agenda that runs counter to keeping the U.S. nuclear deterrent safe and effective. Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio, ranking member on the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, expressed concern "that a zero [nuclear weapons] policy might lead to less program and budget support in the out years."

While the new Prague Treaty will include on-site inspections and data exchanges that will provide key information about Russian nuclear forces, the treaty will not require the United States to significantly reduce its flexible and robust nuclear triad of land-based missiles, submarines and bombers. Indeed, the United States is close to being in compliance with the Prague Treaty today with its current nuclear force structure. The treaty also will not dictate how the United States should arrange its nuclear forces, a change from previous arms-control agreements. By "downloading" the number of warheads deployed on its delivery vehicles without actually destroying the vehicles, the United States will retain a hedge capability to quickly "upload" warheads in the event of systemic technical failures or an existential threat to its security. These attributes of transparency, flexibility and hedge capability in the Prague Treaty will bolster U.S. nuclear deterrence and U.S. national security.

The Obama administration is also putting its money where its mouth is. In next year's budget, the administration plans to increase funding for nuclear stockpile management by 25 percent, add $220 million to study refurbishment of the B61 gravity bomb and expend $800 million for a new nuclear cruise missile. Between now and 2015, the administration intends to analyze alternatives for a next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile, spend $1.7 billion on the Air Force's next-generation bomber and spend $6 billion on the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine. Once in service, the new submarine will conduct its last patrol in 2080.

Check out the full thing here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

Part I of two posts on the Global Zero Movement
Click here for Part II

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…

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Nuclear Posture Review, Global Zero (all tags)

Plutonium Page had a nice story yesterday about some of the reporting on and conclusions people are drawing from the delays in the Nuclear Posture Review and the New START negotiations.  You can read the post here.

Full disclosure: John and I make an appearance.  Quoth John:

I know I'm more optimistic than most people, but on the New START agreement, you have Republicans such as McCain of Arizona and Lugar of Indiana and Corker of Tennessee have already more or less endorsed the treaty. You also have ten Senators who signed a letter in 2009 telling the Obama administration not to [weaken] missile defense, but saying it's important to negotiate a New START treaty. Among the signers are people like Jon Kyl, and Sessions of Alabama, and Lieberman of Connecticut, and others.

But again, it is true that things could get delayed. The Nuclear Posture Review has been delayed. The signing of the New START agreement has been delayed, and Senate consideration of the treaty is [therefore] delayed.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

I’ve written some version of this sentence about 10 bazillion times: “The United States must prepare itself to overcome the new threats of the 21st century, including nuclear terrorism.” But is the threat of nuclear terrorism actually new?

Because transnational terrorist organizations today are more prevalent, more organized, more determined, and more lethal than ever before, the threat of nuclear terrorism in the 21st century can indeed be described as new or unprecedented.

Since the dawn of the Atomic Age, however, analysts have recognized that the mere existence of these weapons made catastrophic terrorist-style attacks possible. This was made clear to me today as I read One World or None.

This short volume, which originally appeared in 1946 but was reissued in 2007, contains more prescience per page than anything I’ve ever read on nuclear issues. Why did the contributors, who were mostly scientists, see the nuclear future so much more clearly than other policymakers at the time? “The answer is surprising in its simplicity,” Richard Rhodes notes in the preface. “The scientists had done the numbers. They understood, as the statesmen and generals did not, that nuclear energy represented a vast change of scale.”

In his chapter titled “The New Technique of Private War,” Edward U. Condon evaluated what nuclear energy’s vast scale meant in the context of possible sabotage. If one were to change “special agent” to “terrorist”, Condon’s passage below could have made a rather eloquent appearance in the 2010 QDR:

In the age of atomic explosives the special agent has not been freed from the traditional restriction of his profession—his physical means must still be small. But no longer does this connote small destruction.

Expanding upon Robert Oppenheimer’s impish observation that only a screwdriver could detect atomic devices smuggled into the United States, Condon powerfully described the nation’s vulnerability to a terrorist-style nuclear attack. Remember, this was written in 1946:

We must accept the fact that in any room where a file case can be stored, in any district of a great city, near any key building or installation, a determined effort can secrete a bomb capable of killing a hundred thousand people and laying waste every ordinary structure within a mile. And we cannot detect this bomb except by stumbling over it, by touching it in the course of our detailed inspection of everything within a box or case or enclosure the size of a large radio cabinet, everywhere in every room of every house, every office building, and every factory of every city, and every town of our country.

Parts of One World or None certainly show their age. Yet Condon’s words demonstrate that although we have successfully prevented all-out nuclear war, we have yet to protect ourselves against another fundamental threat in the Atomic Age: the nearly unstoppable power nuclear weapons can provide to individuals hell-bent on inflicting catastrophic death and destruction.  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Nuclear Posture Review, Read This, Nuclear Terrorism (all tags)

Chalk up another Republican endorsement for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Last Friday former Utah Republican Senator Jake Garn called on the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty.  Said Garn:

Today, one of our greatest security interests is to discourage nuclear weapons testing by others. A global verifiable ban on testing would help block the ability of nuclear-armed countries, such as China, to develop more advanced nuclear weapons. Without nuclear weapon test explosions, could-be nuclear-armed nations — like Iran — would not be able to proof test the smaller, more sophisticated nuclear warhead designs that could be used to arm ballistic missiles.

Evidence that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has some pretty sensible views on nuclear weapons continues to pour in.  Last week Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reaffirmed the DPJ's commitment to Japan's three nonnuclear principles.  Meanwhile, in an end of the year letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Japanese Foreign Minister Okada stated that the Japanese diplomats who told the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States that the TLAM-N is a key piece of the U.S. extended deterrent to Japan might have gone a little overboard.  According to Okada:

Hence, although the discussions were held under the previous Cabinet, it is my understanding that, in the course of exchanges between our countries, including the deliberations of the above mentioned Commission, it was never the case that views were expressed as being those of our government concerning whether or not your government should possess particular [weapons] systems such as TLAM/N and RNEP. If, in some tentative way such a view was expressed, it would clearly be at variance with my views, which are in favor of nuclear disarmament.

In a speech on European Security at L’Ecole Militaire in Paris Secretary of State Clinton reiterated the Obama administration's commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.  She also commented on the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review.  On the Review Clinton noted: we are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United States and our allies while reducing the role and number of the nuclear weapons we have.  How exactly this tightrope will be walked will be revealed (as of now) on March 1.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Table Scraps, tactical nuclear weapons, Japan, Extended Deterrence, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)