My Blog Posts

• 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.
• Quote of the Day: A Challenge on Defense Spending Edition
  02/02/2012 10:34:36 AM EST
  

  But there's an obvious contradiction in the conservative position, because the same people who want to preserve the current, robust level of military outlays also want to reduce the budget deficit without raising taxes. That just doesn't add up in an economy that is struggling to reach three-percent growth annually. We can have higher taxes and continue generating nearly half of all global military outlays; or we can keep taxes where they are and bring federal outlays down to the level that current tax receipts would sustain. But there is no third option if we are intent on reducing the deficit.

  Some conservatives contend that this all can be reconciled by simply paring back the welfare state. But you could wipe out the entire Social Security program -- over a quarter of the federal budget -- and Washington would still be running a sizable budget deficit. Since there is little evidence voters would stand for cuts to Social Security or the major healthcare entitlement programs, opponents of military cuts have some explaining to do. So let's hear it AEI, Heritage, et. al. -- what's your plan? Do you want to raise taxes or just keep borrowing money from China? If you don't want to do either, inquiring minds want to know how you propose that a country with five percent of the world's people and 25 percent of the world's economic output can continue generating nearly half of global military expenditures.

  Loren B. Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates, a for-profit consultancy, January 30, 2012.   For those of you unfamiliar with the Lexington Institute, it's a pretty hawkish, pro-defense outfit.
• The Gift that Keeps on Not Giving
  02/01/2012 11:49:34 PM EST
  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.
• Missile Defense Still Not Defending
  01/25/2012 11:47:56 PM EST
  
  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...