Shorter Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) from Saturday: if the Obama administration does what the New York Times suggests vis-à-vis nuclear weapons policy and does “not update its remaining stockpile of nuclear weapons to make them safer and reliable,” then Senate approval of New START and the Test Ban Treaty is “unlikely” and “in doubt”. Inhofe also wrote that “While some reduction in our nuclear arsenals may be warranted, deep cuts would be destabilizing and would encourage other countries to enter the nuclear competition.”

Since New START will not enact deep cuts, will not include all of the NYT’s recommendations, and has already been paired with a significant budget increase for safety and reliability work by the nuclear labs, it appears that Inhofe’s preconditions will be satisfied when it comes to New START. He may oppose portions of the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review, as well as the Test Ban, but that opposition will have nothing to do with the merits of New START, which will include modest nuclear weapons reductions that Inhofe himself grudgingly accepts are warranted.

Inhofe is not the only lawmaker to espouse “OBAMA’S ARMS CONTROL AGENDA IS HORRIBLE (p.s. New START seems mostly ok).” So too does Sen. John Thune (R-SD), whose own Policy Committee admitted that “the triad may be able to sustain certain cuts in warhead and delivery vehicle numbers.” Tritto (ditto +1) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who in 2009 endorsed “a move, as rapidly as possible, to a significantly smaller force.” Even Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) anti-arms control MO has not included explicitly opposing New START. Of course, this could all change once New START actually exists. But at this point, the core purpose of the treaty--modest reductions--still seems to enjoy wide bipartisan support.

In other words, Kingston’s analysis from December still rings true:

The approach of some vocal Republicans to the “New START” negotiations goes something like this: suggest a dozen different ways that a new arms control agreement with Russia could be detrimental to U.S. security without actually opposing a new arms control agreement with Russia.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Congress, New START, CTBT, Posture Review, FY 2011 Budget Request, Senate (all tags)

Yesterday, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley announced a probable cost overrun and major delay in the tri-service, nine-nation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Under the Nunn-McCurdy statute, this would trigger an extensive, mandatory review of alternatives.

The outcome of any upcoming review, however, appears to already be determined. “This is a fifth-generation fighter/attack capability,” Donley told reporters, “There are no alternatives to that in our system. Yes, you can build the 4.5 generation, enhanced capability F-15 kind of capability. But, really there are no good alternatives to F-35 at this point. This is a program to which we are deeply committed.”

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget bases its revised program strategy for the F-35 on the Joint Estimating Team II report (JET II), prepared last fall. Based on this analysis, the Pentagon chose to extend development by 13 months, reduce production by 122 aircraft and add an additional low-rate initial production lot, LRIP 9, to the program. It also adds a single carrier variant to the development program and pulls three LRIP aircraft into developmental testing to add to the 19 flight test assets already in the program.

Overall, the FY 2011 budget request contains $11.4 billion for the F-35, including $8.7 billion in procurement funding, $2.3 billion for continued research and development and $535 million for spare parts.

Since the budget was announced in February, however, problems with the F-35 have continued to mount…

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY 2011 Budget Request, F-35 (all tags)

In the wake of the release of the Obama administration's FY 2011 budget request, which includes a ten percent increase in funding to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile and supporting infrastructure, Greg Mello took to the online pages of the Bulletin to posit and answer a question:

So how is the president's budget compatible with his disarmament vision?

The answer is simple: There is no evidence that Obama has, or ever had, any such vision.

Center head honchos John Isaacs and Lt. Gen. Robert Gard took issue with this characterization and penned a short rebuttal, which the Bulletin published today.  On the issue of whether there's a contradiction between espousing disarmament goals and maintaining our deterrent, John and Gen. Gard write:    

Mello sees Obama's requested increase in the fiscal year 2011 budget for stockpile stewardship and the construction of new facilities at the nuclear laboratories as a commitment to the production of new nuclear weapons. Yet the administration has made clear that there are no such plans underfoot; the 2011 budget request states unequivocally that "new weapons systems will not be built." As such, the president's requested increase in nuclear expenditures should be viewed in the context of seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further nuclear weapon reductions.

More largely, there is nothing inconsistent between a vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world and ensuring a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent in the interim, including refurbishment of aging systems, providing the labs with facilities to replace their deteriorating physical plants, and maintaining the essential expertise that the scientists at the labs provide. Nor does such a deterrent require "unending innovation," as Mello claims. Our current nuclear weapons inventory, validated by extensive testing, is more than adequate to deter the use of nuclear weapons against the United States, our troops abroad, and our allies, provided sufficient resources are dedicated to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. [emphasis mine].

You can read the full piece here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, FY 2011 Budget Request (all tags)

Today, Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech on nuclear weapons that badly needed to be given. Delayed completion of the U.S.-Russia New START agreement has endangered the Obama administration’s tightly-sequenced arms control agenda (New START, Nuke Summit, NPT RevCon, CTBT…FMCT/deep cuts?) During the time since START I’s lapse in December, opponents of the administration’s agenda have become more organized and more vocal, threatening to block progress before it even starts. Yet Biden’s speech today should help the administration reverse these negative trends and regain control over what has become one of its signature foreign policy objectives.

What did Biden do well? He spoke movingly about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons, something that gets forgotten in the transaction-oriented culture of Washington and the theory-oriented culture of strategic policy. “The very existence of nuclear weapons leaves the human race ever at the brink of self-destruction,” he said. “The destroyed world Oppenheimer feared must not ever become a reality.” [All quotes from my notes and not official]

Biden also achieved something very important: he clearly delineated how the Obama administration’s priorities—nuclear reductions, nonproliferation, strategic stability—can provide the U.S. nuclear weapons labs with a reinvigorated mission and sense of purpose. The labs are “true national treasures that deserve our full support,” said Biden. He lauded the labs’ historical role and explained how the bigger FY 2011 nuclear weapons budget “reverses the last decade of dangerous decline” under the Bush administration, when “nuclear facilities were neglected and underfunded.” Biden concluded that “responsible disarmament requires versatile specialists” who provide the scientific and technical expertise to achieve the nation’s national security goals.

In response to my question earlier—political co-optation or chastisement?—Biden went with co-optation. He cited Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and McCain as members of the “emerging bipartisan consensus” on nuclear issues. He triangulated between liberal arms controllers concerned with the bigger FY 2011 nuclear budget and conservative deterrence-freaks alarmed by anybody not named Ronald. “We respectfully disagree” with both groups, he noted. In sum, Biden mostly kept his political nose clean, except for the shots at President Bush’s stewardship of the nuclear complex, and stuck to positive justifications for the administration’s plans.

Finally, Biden said relatively little about international concerns, though he did remark that the NPT “consensus is fraying” and needs to be strengthened. Of all the forums where international relations are too wonky to discuss, I thought National Defense University would have been an exception. I guess not.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Obama Administration, New START, CTBT, FY 2011 Budget Request, Extended Deterrence (all tags)

In Washington today at 1 PM eastern time, Vice President Joe Biden will give a major address on U.S. nuclear weapons policy at National Defense University. According to press reports, the speech will complement Biden’s January 29 WSJ op-ed by: 1) elaborating on the rationale behind the FY 2011 nuclear weapons budget increase; 2) previewing April’s Global Nuclear Security Summit and May’s NPT Review Conference; 3) explaining how advances in nuclear weapons science have delegitimized previous concerns about the CTBT; and 4) debunking the straw man criticism that envisioning a future without nuclear weapons somehow negates concrete initiatives that advance U.S. security interests today, such as New START.

Here are three things to look for in Biden’s speech:

Co-opt or chastise? – Does Biden justify the administration’s agenda by co-opting the political middle (i.e. moderates/graybeards) or by chastising critics as out of touch with 21st century security challenges? Or neither? This will forecast how the administration plans to handle New START ratification a few months from now.

Budget and the labs – It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the FY 2011 nuclear weapons budget increase as “hush money” for the Obama administration’s arms control agenda. This makes for shrewd short-term tactics; however, it does not address the long-term challenges facing the labs on personnel, morale, and more. While we shouldn’t let the laboratory tail wag the U.S. foreign policy dog, let’s not pretend that Obama’s political opponents won’t exploit the labs’ challenges not only to pocket the FY 2011 budget increase, but also to demand more more more.

So, for Biden today: how does the FY 2011 budget increase tie into a long-term vision for what the labs should be doing in the 21st century? How can the administration’s priorities—nuclear reductions, nonproliferation, strategic stability—provide the labs with a reinvigorated sense of purpose?

International community and ED – If there was a flaw in Biden’s WSJ op-ed, it was that he avoided touting the administration’s approach to key allies. Not to carp when an 800 word op-ed doesn’t accomplish everything a 5,000 word essay could, but there is an international component to the administration’s agenda that goes beyond the Nuclear Summit and Review Conference. I’m talking about ED—no, not John Isaacs’s sweetest tie ever, but extended deterrence.

Mr. Veep: how will the Obama administration assure allies of the commitment of the U.S. nuclear umbrella while reducing its arsenal? Providing a positive answer to this question will demonstrate to key allies that the administration’s agenda is not being pursued unilaterally without considering our friends’ interests, too.

UPDATE 12:15 PM: You can watch the speech here or here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Obama Administration, New START, CTBT, FY 2011 Budget Request, Extended Deterrence (all tags)

The big funding increase for nuclear nonproliferation has become, at this point, a well-developed part of the narrative surrounding the new fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget. Vice President Biden messaged it in the Wall Street Journal. An administration apparatchik followed up on background with tastemaker Laura Rozen. And the press guys (and they are all guys) covered it: Fleck, Landay, Matishak, Pincus, and Ambinder.

More nonproliferation funding is always good. If the Pentagon is as serious about stopping nuclear terrorism as the 2010 QDR suggests, it ought to spend at least 0.074 percent of its total budget on Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, as is proposed for FY 2011, right?

Yet there’s more to the nuke game than nonproliferation. Yep, you guessed it: I’m talking about hardware. How much leg did the FY 2011 budget show on new nuclear bombers and submarines? And what does it mean for President Obama’s arms control agenda? Read on, read on…

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Air Force, Defense Spending, FY 2011 Budget Request, Posture Review, Navy (all tags)

NNSA isn’t the only agency looking to get paid next fiscal year. From the Air Force’s budget summary:

Starting in FY 2011 the B-2A will receive funding across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to improve the [Defensive Management System] on the aircraft. This initiative will allow the B-2A to continue operations around the world in more advanced threat environments while decreasing the maintenance required to operate the system. The B-2A will also have funding increased for the Weapon System Support Center (WSSC) which enables testing of current as well as developmental aircraft systems. The B-52H is undergoing several modernization programs in order to maintain its viability through 2040. Current initiatives include installing the 1760 bus on the B-52H for increased smart weapon capability while progressing with the Strategic Radar Replacement program, aimed at replacing its current radar (which is experiencing sustainment and obsolescence issues). The B-52H Extremely High Frequency program integrates communications and data and supports United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) requirements for secure, survivable communications via Emergency Action Messages.

As part of the effort to sustain ICBMs, funding was realigned in FY 2011 to complete the installation of new environmental control systems at the launch facilities. The Air Force also procured more Minuteman III test equipment over the FYDP to provide the necessary flight test components for follow-on test and evaluation launches to ensure reliability, accuracy and viability of the fielded ICBM force. Additionally, funding provided for the development of software to validate message generator processes critical for nuclear certification. The FY 2011 Budget Request includes $295M to modernize out-dated fuzing mechanisms and to sustain test equipment and environmental control systems for the aging but capable Minuteman III ICBMs. The UH-1N that supports missile launch complexes will begin replacement activities with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date of FY 2015. The Air Force continues to analyze and address requirements to maintain the Minuteman III ICBM to 2030 as directed by Congress.

Raise your right hand and repeat after him: The United States is the only declared nuclear power that is not modernizing its nuclear forces. The United States is the only declared nuclear power that is not modernizing its nuclear forces. The United States is…

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Air Force, Defense Spending, FY 2011 Budget Request, Posture Review (all tags)

In case you haven’t heard, the President’s FY 2011 budget request was released this week.

For a full report, see my budget briefing book online.  

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, which begins on October 1, 2010, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $548.9 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD). This is approximately $18 billion, or 3.4 percent, above FY 2010 appropriations.

In addition, the administration has requested $159.3 billion to support Overseas Contingency Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which brings the FY 2011 defense budget request to a total of $708.3 billion.

Including an expected $33 billion in supplemental appropriations, the planned percent increase in total DoD spending for FY 2011 will be 2.1 percent over FY 2010.

Adjusted for inflation this amounts to a $9 billion, or 1.3 percent, increase over FY 2010.

In addition to an initial $708 billion, the administration has requested $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at DoE and $7 billion for additional non-DoD defense related activities. This brings total non-DoD defense related spending (053/054) to a total of $25 billion, a $2 billion increase over FY 2010.

Though the numbers are large, particularly compared to non-military discretionary spending, let’s look at the bright side of things...

Read more

Security Matters, FY 2011 Budget Request, Iraq & Afghanistan (all tags)

Stay tuned to Nukes of Hazard as we roll out our analysis of the FY 2011 budget request in the coming hours and days.  Meanwhile, I was walking around the office this morning foraging for something to eat and came across this on one of the doors on the first floor.  I wonder if it's meant to be a comment on the 10% increase for nuclear weapons activities in the budget er something.  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, FY 2011 Budget Request (all tags)

In his April 2009 Prague speech on a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, President Obama vowed to purse a number of steps to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.  “As long as these weapons exist,” the President added, “the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”

Vice President Joe Biden takes to the page of the not-so friendly Wall Street Journal op-ed page today to outline how the Obama administration’s upcoming Fiscal Year 2011 budget, which will be released next week, will allow the U.S. to maintain a strong deterrent into the future...  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Four Horsemen, FY 2011 Budget Request, Joe Biden (all tags)