Today marks the 1st anniversary of the entry into force of the New START treaty.  I used my February Bulletin column to muse on the treaty's implementation to date as well as future prospects for further nuclear arms reductions.

Here's an excerpt:

The Obama administration has stated that it seeks additional verifiable reductions with Russia not only in deployed strategic forces, but also in non-deployed strategic warheads and nonstrategic (i.e., tactical) nuclear weapons, which aren't currently limited by any treaty. This would greatly benefit US security.

For example, a new treaty limit of 1,000 deployed strategic warheads would reduce the number of Russian nuclear weapons pointed at the United States and likely dissuade Moscow from moving forward with destabilizing nuclear modernization programs -- such as the development of a new heavy ICBM. Verifiable limits on non-deployed warheads and nonstrategic weapons could enhance stability by addressing Russia's large stockpile of nonstrategic weapons, ensuring that nuclear warheads are actually eliminated as opposed to merely placed in storage, and providing greater transparency on all types of nuclear warheads instead of only deployed warheads.

Plus, additional reductions would save money -- not a minor calculation in this budget climate. As it stands, the Pentagon and Energy Department are planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade and beyond to build new nuclear delivery systems and warhead-production facilities. But reductions would stem the need for many of these planned replacement systems.

You can read the whole thing here. The State Department also released a helpful update on the treaty's implementation that you can view here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START (all tags)

Reading through the news this morning, I came across a headline in the Washington Post that got me to thinking about the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement:

"France to sell Rafale figher jet to India"

The long and the short of the story is that India inked an $11 billion deal with France for 126 Rafale fighter jets. We've known since last April that New Dehli had ruled out purchasing planes from U.S. defense firms (i.e. Boeing and Lockheed Martin).  It's also true that the U.S. and India have concluded other defense deals and more sales are being considered.

But many proponents of the U.S.-India deal argued at the time the pact was being consummated that it would create lucrative new markets for U.S. defense and nuclear business.  This hasn't exactly turned out to be the case.

Speaking of nuclear business, U.S. companies have still not yet started nuclear trade with India and may be reluctant to do so if New Delhi does not resolve concerns regarding its policies on liability for nuclear reactor suppliers in the event of an accident.

As you may remember, we were quite skeptical of the deal on nonproliferation, national security, and economic grounds when it was an issue before Congress in 2007 and 2008.  Last June, Michael Krepon provided an assessment of the status of the implementation of the agreement to date, and asked whether in retrospect supporters or critics of the deal had the better argument.

According to Krepon, "So far, U.S. backers of the deal have...been proven wrong on every count." It's difficult to disagree.  

UPDATE 2/2: For more on why the U.S. approach to civilian nuclear cooperation in general doesn't appear to make much sense, see my post from last week here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, U.S.-India deal (all tags)

The Netherlands has accepted Seoul's request to host the 3rd Nuclear Security Summit in 2014.

In a January 31 (local time) statement, its Foreign Ministry said," The Dutch government regards the request as a sign of trust and has responded positively. The chairmanship will be officially transferred at the 2012 Summit in Seoul in March."

Yonhap News cited (Korean language) similar comments made by Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal who, while submitting a report to parliament, said that "the (Dutch) government regards South Korea's request as an expression of confidence based on the Netherlands' contributions to nuclear nonproliferation efforts this year."

An official announcement is expected in late March during the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, as was case after the first 2010 Washington Summit.

At the 2010 Summit in Washington, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende had argued for a new international court or tribunal to investigate countries that provide nuclear material to terrorists, claiming the Hague would be the ideal site.

Read more

Netherlands, Nuclear Security Summit, Nukes on a Blog, nuclear terrorism (all tags)

I recently wrote an analysis on the future of the proposed life extension program for the B61 gravity bomb.

It argues, "Congress provided the full $233 million NNSA requested for the B61 life extension program in FY 2012. However, when you read the fine print, it is less clear how Congress will respond to future funding requests. According to the Conference Report for H.R. 2055, the legislation which funds the government for FY 2012, including NNSA, Congress withheld $134 million until “NNSA submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the outcome of the Phase 6.2/2A design definition and cost study.

The results of this study, as well as other stringent reporting requirements mandated by Congress, are likely to present insurmountable hurdles to NNSA’s plan to move forward with the most ambitious option for the B61 LEP. The current budget environment is no doubt also a key driver of the need to reevalutate the objectives of the program, but a rethinking of the goals of the planned refurbishment would be necessary even in better economic times."

You can read the entire piece here.

Read more

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

UPDATE (1/29): Portions of this post have been revised to add additional detail and clarity.

Regular readers of the blog will remember that last October we flagged the following rosy proclamation from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta about U.S. missile defenses: “But you know, we really do have a very remarkable defense system set up to deal with that challenge [i.e. the missile threat to the U.S. homeland].” [emphasis mine.]

Two new reports suggest Panetta ought to be a little less effusive in his praise.  The reports demonstrate that the currently deployed missile defense systems are still unable to reliably intercept and destroy incoming enemy warheads...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, missile defense (all tags)

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)

Tauscher acknowledged there are people within the Russian government who will “never trust us” -- and still have concerns about “offense and defense.”

She also suggested vestiges of a Cold War-era mentality could be a contributing factor, and ran through a potential scenario: “I’m sitting, you know, in one of their Seven Sister buildings ... trying to figure out how to get my [Ministry of Defense] money, and I’ve been doing it the same old way for 25 years. Now all of a sudden somebody says, 'We're going to be friends with those people. You don’t have to worry about it,' ” Tauscher said. “[I’m] sitting there thinking, what does that mean? … I need an enemy … I have to have somebody that I’m going to say: ‘This is their most recent picture on their Internet, I need to now counter this.' Because that’s what I’ve done for 25 years."

"I understand this," Tauscher continued. "And every once in a while, you can imagine that these people kind of gin up their administration.”

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, speaking to reporters about the ongoing travails of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks, January 12, 2011.

For  our take on the state of the missile defense impasse, see here.

Read more

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

Interested in launching (or at least dabbling in) a career in peace and security? Then you should apply for the Scoville Fellowship, a truly unique and rare opportunity for recent college graduates (and postgraduates) to spend six to nine months at a participating organization of your choice here in Washington D.C.

Did I mention that the Fellowship pays a stipend?

The Scoville Fellowship is currently accepting applications for the Fall 2012 semester. Don't delay: The application deadline is January 17, 2011.

Application requirements can be found here. Click here to see answers to frequently asked questions about the fellowship.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Scoville (all tags)

On January 5 President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and other high-ranking defense officials previewed the results of the recently completed strategic defense review at a press briefing at the Pentagon. Though short on specific details about which programs and systems will be scaled back or eliminated, the review lays out a blueprint that will inform the more than $450 billion in reductions to projected defense spending increases the administration is planning to implement over the next decade. We’ll find out more about the budget impact of this blueprint when the FY 2013 budget request is released next month.

You can read of copy of the strategy document, entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” here. Our initial take on the review can be found here.

I put together some more detailed observations on the implications of the review for U.S. nuclear policy and budgets over at the mothership. Read them here.

The bottom line? The Pentagon appears to be setting the stage, albeit cautiously, for further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the nuclear weapons budget. How the play ends, however, remains to be seen.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)