New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms
John Isaacs | Oct 25, 2011 |
2 Note: For our analysis of the first New START data exchange, see here.
Category of Data
Deployed ICBMs, Deployed SLBMs, and Deployed Heavy Bombers
822 United States of America
516 Russian Federation
Warheads on Deployed ICBMs, on Deployed SLBMs, and Nuclear Warheads Counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers
1,790 United States of America
1,566 Russian Federation
Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of ICBMs, Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of SLBMs, and Deployed and Non-deployed Heavy Bombers
1,043 United States of America
871 Russian Federation
______________
(As of September 1, 2011, as drawn from the exchange of data by the Parties. Data in this Fact Sheet comes from the biannual exchange of data required by the Treaty. It contains data declared current as of September 1, 2011. Data will be updated each six month period after entry into force of the Treaty.)
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
October 25, 2011
Senate Committee Asks Tough Questions as it Reduces Growth Rate of Nuclear Weapons Budgets
Nickolas Roth | Sep 08, 2011 | 2 The search for federal budget savings was apparent as the Senate Appropriations Committee released its version of the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill on September 7. While the Committee recommended $7.19 billion for nuclear weapons programs, approximately $250 million more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and over $800 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, it made major strides in addressing some excessive and wasteful nuclear weapons programs.
The Committee took on the Life Extension Program (LEP) for the B-61 bomb, the plan to build the Uranium Processing Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at the same time, and Scaled Experiments. The Committee’s strong language on LEPs and construction projects is a welcome surprise. These programs were a central part of the nuclear weapons funding debate that took place in the context of the consideration of the New START treaty for much of the past two years.
The Committee made it clear that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) cannot complete all of its major life extension and construction projects as planned and sustain its other activities given the current fiscal environment. Rather than move forward with multiple programs that are unlikely to be completed on time or on budget, the Senate bill provides NNSA with a good opportunity to prioritize the programs that are most essential to its primary mission, which is to maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing.
Nukes on a Blog, Congress, Budget, Nuclear Weapons, National Nuclear Security Administration (all tags)
DOE’s Previously Unreleased Budget Analysis
Nickolas Roth | Aug 10, 2011 | 0 In a recent interview with the Los Alamos Monitor, Kingston Reif correctly noted that, given the current budget environment and the recently passed debt limit deal, Congress is likely to continue to closely scrutinize the major construction projects within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
In February 2011, the new Republican-led House proposed to cut over $300 million from NNSA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 request of $7 billion for weapons activities in its version of a year long continuing resolution for FY 2011 (nearly all of this money was restored in the final continuing resolution passed by Congress in April).
On July 13, the House approved the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, which includes a cut of nearly $500 million to the FY 2012 request of $7.63 billion for weapons activities and a reduction of over $150 million to the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel program (see here for my full analysis of the bill). Even with a $500 million cut to weapons activities in FY 2012, the Committee’s recommendation is still a three percent increase over the FY 2011 level. NNSA would still have more than enough money to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable stockpile.
In its report on the bill, the Appropriations Committee stated that “the economic crisis requires that NNSA proceed with its modernization activities in a responsible manner and the Committee is seriously concerned with the recent cost growth reported for construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project.”
NNSA has a long history of poor management and cost overruns, which has made it a fixture on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk List”.
This cost growth is actually far worse than previously understood.
Nukes on a Blog, Congress, department of energy, nuclear weapons, budget (all tags)
EINSTEIN AND SZILARD IN PRINCETON
John Isaacs | Feb 13, 2011 | 0 The Pioneers of Nuclear Science as Colleagues, Friends, and Neighbors
By William Lanouette, Ph.D.
The Lewis B. Cuyler Lecture
Historical Society of Princeton
Nassau Club, Princeton, February 9, 2011
Albert Einstein is probably the most famous Princeton resident of the 20th Century (except, perhaps, for Woodrow Wilson or Bill Bradley or Brooke Shields). But he’s clearly the most famous scientist in modern history. By contrast, his friend and colleague Leo Szilard was a shadowy figure in the history of nuclear science – essential to its progress, yet now mostly forgotten. Szilard preferred to work behind the scenes, advising others on how to save the world: he advised not only Einstein and fellow scientists, but also U.S presidents and Senators, and two Soviet premiers.
In this talk I will describe how the lives and careers of Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard converged, first in Berlin, then here in Princeton.
Senate Schedule = Oxymoron
John Isaacs | Jan 07, 2011 | 0 ox•y•mo•ron = a combination of contradictory or incongruous words
(as cruel kindness)
People frequently ask – well, at least congressional wonks– what is the Senate schedule? When will it consider a piece of legislation or when might a vote occur?
The correct answer to these questions usually is, “Who Knows?” That’s because the Majority Leader usually does not know. The Republican leader does not know. The other 98 Senators do not know.
Take recent predictions by the people most directly interested in getting a handle on the Senate schedule during the recently concluded lame duck session: 100 Senators.
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) told MSNBC on November 18, "I think there is no chance that [the START] treaty can be completed in the lame duck session."
Hmmm. Turns out there was a chance.
Senate Floor Speeches by Sen. Byron Dorgan
John Isaacs | Dec 28, 2010 | 0 Senate Floor Speeches by Sen. Byron Dorgan
Nuclear weapons complex modernization
Case for nuclear weapons reductions
December 22, 2010
Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion about modernization this morning. I have listened to much of it and was not going to come to the floor, but I do want the record to show clearly what the numbers are on modernization. It is important to the future for us to understand what has been done and what is being done and what will be done.
I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons activities. I have spoken about this previously. It is very important going forward that we all understand what not only this administration but the previous administration has proposed with respect to modernization. I agree with my colleague from Kentucky. It is encouraging, at the end of this debate, that two bipartisan amendments represent the conclusion of this very important debate. We often debate things that are of lesser importance or of greater importance and sometimes don't always see the difference between the two. But this is one of those cases where if we ratify the START agreement today, when all is said and done, more will have been done than said. That is very unusual in a political body.
New START Debate (Day 8, the final day – December 22)
John Isaacs | Dec 22, 2010 | 1 
By John Isaacs and Kingston Reif
New START Debate (Day 8, the final day – December 22)
After a battle that lasted many months, the Senate voted 71-26 to give its advice and consent to the New START Resolution of Ratification.
The effort to win the Senate’s two-thirds majority was like riding a roller coaster, with optimism followed by pessimism followed by optimism and back and forth.
Ultimately, the vote was a remarkably bipartisan victory in an intensely hyper-partisan atmosphere. It is a victory for the consensus of former national security officials of both parties and both active duty and retired military.
It is certainly a victory for the Obama Administration that won three major bipartisan measures in the waning days of Congress: the tax cut bill, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and New START.
By approving New START, the United States has sent a strong signal to the world that it can be counted on to be a reliable partner and leader in promoting nuclear stability. The treaty will also help buttress cooperative efforts with Russia and others to secure and safeguard nuclear material stockpiles and warheads and maintain and strengthen support for tougher measures against rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.
Before the final vote, the Senate adopted a Kyl amendment by voice vote, worked out with Senator Kerry (D-MA) and the Administration, to accelerate funding for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex.
The Senate also adopted by voice vote a McCain (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT), Corker (R-TN) amendment to make it clear that the United States does not accept the Russian interpretation of the missile defense language in the treaty and an understanding that the preamble to the treaty is not binding (stating the obvious and restating Obama Administration position).
Ratification of the treaty is only the beginning. The U.S. and Russia should take advantage of the momentum created by the approval of New START to pursue negotiations on reductions in all types of nuclear warheads, including non-deployed and non-strategic warheads, in a timely manner.
Lots of credit goes to Senators Kerry and Lugar (R-IN), who managed the treaty, other Senators who have been active for the treaty such as Casey (D-PA), Shaheen (D-NH), Cardin (D-MD), Franken (D-MN) and others, the Obama Administration who put together a terrific campaign (and I will not name everyone because there are too many to name) and a terrific effort by the arms control community.
It is now time for everyone to scatter for their well-deserved holiday vacations.
Senate vote on Cloture (ending debate) on New START
John Isaacs | Dec 21, 2010 | 0 December 21, 2010
Republican Senators voting aye bolded and italicized
YEAs ---67
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
42 GOP amendments offered to New START
John Isaacs | Dec 20, 2010 | 1 1. (Defeated) McCain Amendment 4814 to strike
“Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more importation as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”
2. Inhofe Amendment 4833 VERIFICATION to increase the number of Type One inspections from 10 to 30 as well as increasing the number of Type Two inspections from 8 to 24.
3. (Defeated) Risch Amendment 4839 would insert the following into the preamble:
“Acknowledging there is an interrelationship between non-strategic and strategic offensive arms, that as the number of strategic offensive arms is reduced this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability, and that the disparity between the Parties’ arsenals could undermine predictability and stability.”
4. Ensign Amendment 4840 RAIL MOBILE seeks to clarify that a self-propelled device means a railcar or flatcar (road mobile devices).
5. Thune Amendment 4841 WARHEAD LIMITS seeks to increase the limits on the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers) from 700 to 720.
6. Thune Amendment 4842 WARHEAD LIMITS seeks to increase the limits on the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers) from 700 to 800.
22 GOP Senators say whoa on New START
John Isaacs | Dec 06, 2010 | 0 Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and 20 colleagues sent a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on December 2 to say not so fast on New START (8 months is too fast?).
The Senators said: “We have numerous amendments requiring significant debate to the treaty as well as the resolution of ratification that we would like to offer and have votes on. It would be unwise and improper to do this in a hurried fashion over the course of only a few days.”
The letter serves as a signal that these 22 Senators are most likely to vote no when the Senate takes up the treaty. See list below.
Also noteworthy are the dogs that did not bark (fans of Sherlock Holmes?).
