My Blog Posts

• The Dawn of Nuclear Sanity? - and a few other observations
  02/21/2012 08:21:18 AM EST
  By now most readers have undoubtedly read Robert Burns' Associated Press story that as part of the Obama administration's ongoing review of deterrence requirements, the Pentagon has prepared options for future nuclear force levels that could eventually lead to steep reductions below the New START level of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. Burns alleges that one of the options under consideration calls for a reduction to 300 deployed warheads. Predictably, the usual Republican suspects freaked out, because that's what they do when anyone suggests altering the unsustainable nuclear status quo.   Others have noted that the timing of this leak is suggestive, given that it came days before scheduled speeches by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on U.S. nuclear weapons policy.   Our Dear Leader has already weighed in on this issue. You can read his article entitled "The Dawn of Nuclear Sanity" here.  For other contributions from friends of NoH, see here, here, here, here, and here. Below are a few of my observations...
• Rep. Turner vs. the Budget Control Act: More Nukes is Good Nukes
  02/15/2012 10:51:19 PM EST
  I've got a new article up over at the mothership on NoH BFF Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH).  Here's an excerpt:

  Rep. Michael Turner’s (R-OH) love affair with nuclear weapons continues. His national security raison d'être appears to be to protect at all costs spending on an excessively large nuclear arsenal ill-suited to the current threat environment and oppose common sense, bipartisan steps such as the New START treaty that begin to put America’s nuclear posture on a 21st century footing.

  On February 8, the Chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee announced that he plans to introduce an updated version of the New START Implementation Act following the release of the President’s budget on February 13.

  ...

  Turner argues that a new version of the bill is needed because the administration’s FY 2013 budget request of $7.58 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Weapons Activities account is less than the $7.95 billion called for as part of the November 2010 update to the Section 1251 report. All told the 1251 report calls for $88 billion in spending on NNSA weapons activities between FY 2011 and FY 2020. The FY 2013 request does not keep pace with this plan. According to NNSA, “the Administration will develop outyear funding levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.” Within weapons activities, the request defers the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility (CMRR-NF), the new plutonium facility scheduled to be built at Los Alamos, by five years.

  Turner claims that the U.S. shouldn’t implement the reductions required by the New START treaty (to say nothing about deeper reductions) without spending the amounts outlined in the 1251 report.

  Like his previous efforts to constrain U.S. implementation of New START and future changes to U.S. nuclear posture, Turner’s latest gambit isn’t likely to gain much traction outside the House Armed Services Committee. Not only did Turner lose the funding battle when Congress passed the Budget Control Act, but preventing the reductions required by New START would undermine U.S. security.

  Read the whole thing here.
• FY 2013 Budget Stuff: Initial Nuclear Weapons Numbers
  02/14/2012 10:50:30 AM EST
  Now that budget day has come and gone, it's time to sift through and try to digest all the numbers.  Laicie got us going yesterday with her annual defense budget briefing book.  Below I've put together a chart on the FY 2013 request for strategic nuclear replacement systems (click on the thumbnail for the full PDF). Stay tuned for more in the coming days and weeks. On nukes there weren't too many surprises. The FY 2013 Pentagon budget does not make any cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal as future decisions about the size and structure of U.S. strategic forces will be determined by the administration’s ongoing secret review of nuclear deterrence requirements. The Pentagon has hinted that additional reductions are possible, but it remains to be seen how far-reaching they will be. Though the big decisions about the future of the arsenal have yet to be made, as previously announced the Pentagon will delay the Ohio-Class ballistic missile submarine by two years, saving $4.3 billion from FY 2013 – FY 2017. The plans for a new long-range bomber are moving full steam ahead.  Studies on a follow-on to the Minuteman III ICBM also appear to be progressing, as they received $11.6 million and a new line item in the budget. On the NNSA side, the budget request provides $7.58 billion, an increase of $363 million over the FY 2012 enacted level but a reduction of $372 million below the projected level outlined in the Section 1251 report. As previously reported, the budget defers the new plutonium production facility at Los Alamos for five years, saving an estimated $1.8 billion over the next five years. Due to the Budget Control Act, funding levels for weapons activities will not keep pace with the 1251 report.  But the FY 2012 appropriation and the FY 2013 budget request provide major increases for nuclear weapons programs. By way of additional comparison, the FY 2013 request is a $710 million increase over the FY 2011 enacted level and an increase of $1.2 billion over the FY 2010 enacted level! NNSA will still be provided with more than enough money to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear warheads. Of course if sequestration is implemented all bets are off and funding for nuclear modernization activities at the Pentagon and NNSA will take a big hit. As budget analyst Todd Harrison rightly observes, "The budget request and new strategic guidance are of little consequence until this uncertainty is resolved." Our message on all this remains the same: The U.S. should prioritize scarce dollars on the weapons we need for current threats and spend less on unaffordable nuclear programs with diminishing strategic relevance – with our without sequestration.  The decision to delay the Ohio-class replacement program and defer the new plutonium facility at Los Alamos are good first steps, but there is ample room for more cuts.
• Happy 1st Brithday, New START
  02/05/2012 10:49:42 AM EST
  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.
• Who's Ready for the Better to Be Lucky Than Good Bowl?
  02/03/2012 04:31:37 PM EST
  Not that I'm a bitter Green Bay fan or anything... My prediction, for what its worth: Patriots 30 - Giants 24.