Andrew's Blog Entries [Return to My Profile Page]
Attacks on Pakistani Nuclear Facilities
Andrew | Aug 20, 2009 |
0 
Light August beach reading
In July, the CTC Sentinel published an analysis stating that over the past two years, several Pakistani nuclear weapons sites have come under attack. Shaun Gregory, the author of the report and an expert on Pakistani security, pointed to three instances where Pakistani sites were targeted by militants:
…an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons assembly sites.
Pakistan’s problem emanates in part from the location of its nuclear facilities. Worried about their vulnerability to an Indian invasion or strike, Pakistan placed many of its complexes around Islamabad and in the northwestern portion of the country. With the rise in militant extremism, many of these facilities now find themselves in or near areas populated by the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda...
U.S. and Russia Struggle with Chemical Weapons Convention Deadline
Andrew | Aug 04, 2009 | 0 
In the latest Arms Control Today, an interesting news piece examines U.S. and Russian obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which requires its 188 ratifying members to destroy their stockpiles of chemical agents and delivery vehicles by April 2012. While both the United States and Russia have made progress, it is unlikely at this juncture that either will meet the deadline.
Though not intentionally flouting an international agreement, the United States could face a diplomatic problem by not meeting its CWC deadline obligation.
F-22 Debate Heats Up
Andrew | Jul 16, 2009 | 0 This week, the Senate began debating an amendment, backed by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member John McCain, which would strip $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s from the 2010 Defense Authorization bill.
A vote on the Levin-McCain amendment was delayed yesterday because of alleged procedural wrangling, although one suspects that the sponsors may have had a bad feeling about their prospects and decided to delay the vote and twist some more arms. Levin vowed to bring it back up for a vote, however, as soon as next week.
A number of prominent figures have come out against further F-22 production, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several top Air Force officials.
On Monday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley issued a letter (h/t POGO) calling for an end to F-22 production. An excerpt reads:
In summary, we assessed the F-22 decision from all angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of available resources. We did not and do not recommend F-22s be included in the FY10 defense budget. This is a difficult decision but one with which we are comfortable. Most importantly, in this and other budget decisions, we believe it is important for Air Force leaders to make clear choices, balancing requirements across a range of Air Force contributions to joint capabilities.
Given that Obama promised to veto any legislation containing funding for more F-22s, it will be interesting to see where this debate leads over the next week or so.
U.S. Arms Sales May Top $40 Billion in 2009
Andrew | Jun 22, 2009 | 0 
Choo choo?
A big focus of President Obama’s foreign policy has been to build consensus with other countries in order to tackle international security issues. Unfortunately, a rise in arms sales may result.
Last week, it was reported that U.S. arms sales are on pace to top $40 billion in 2009. That is up from at least $32 billion in 2008 and $25 billion in 2007.
Numerous Obama administration officials have stressed the importance of international coalitions and partnerships in dealing with security challenges. Implicit in these statements is an offer to sell weapons to countries that are considered key U.S. allies.
There are, of course, other factors at work. For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, funded mainly by the U.S. in partnership with eight other countries, is expected to result in over 4,000 fighter orders in the coming years. There has also been a more aggressive pursuit of foreign sales by U.S. companies since Secretary Gates’s defense cuts were announced in April.
Arms sales should not become the cornerstone of Obama’s drive to reinvigorate America’s standing in the international community. Particularly in the developing world, arms sales to repressive regimes discredit the United States in the eyes of local populations. How can we say we stand for freedom and liberty while providing undemocratic governments with weapons that allow them to remain in power and crack down on internal dissent?
HASC Gives Nonproliferation a Needed Boost
Andrew | Jun 18, 2009 | 0 On Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee marked up the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Among the provisions included were some especially promising nonproliferation boosts. Here’s how a couple of programs that Kingston and Cuyler were concerned about fared:
The Power of Repetition
Andrew | Jun 08, 2009 | 0 During last week’s speech at Cairo University, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to promoting steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons:
“I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
This statement strongly reiterated policies Obama has supported over the last few months. For instance, in a recent NPR interview, Obama said:
“…I think one of the things that we need to do is to describe to the Iranians a pathway for them achieving security, respect and prosperity that doesn't involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. But we have to be able to make that same argument to other countries that might aspire to nuclear weapons and we have to apply some of those same principles to ourselves so that, for example, I'll be traveling next month to Moscow to initiate start talks, trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles as part of a broader effort in the international community to contain our nuclear weapons.”
These statements follow the remarkable Prague speech, where Obama declared “America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Obama’s remarks over the past months represent some of the most significant commitments ever made by a U.S. president to nuclear non-proliferation. This trend of high profile statements - not only by Obama but also by Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and others - is just what we need.
The repetition drives home how serious the issue is to the United States and signals our willingness to undertake the cooperation necessary to achieve security from nuclear weapons. The strong public statements clear the field for vigorous diplomatic action on START, Iran, and missile defense in the months ahead.
