Earlier today Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) submitted a statement for the record on the START follow-on agreement (aka New START).  The full statement is posted below the jump.  Some highlights:

...

The United States and Russia maintain over ninety percent of the world’s approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond.

...

The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that “terrorist use of a nuclear weapon against the United States or its friends and allies is more likely than deliberate use by a state.” Our priority, therefore, should be to work together with Russia to reduce the size and vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals, and ensure that proper security and surveillance safeguards are in place.

...

I am encouraged that efforts to negotiate a START follow-on agreement have bipartisan support among national security experts. Notably, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, headed by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, endorsed a follow-on agreement to START. Similarly, Secretary Perry joined with former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the extension of the key provisions of START and further reductions in our nuclear stockpile.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START (all tags)

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has something on his mind. No, it’s not David Brooks. It’s the U.S. nuclear triad.

In February, Thune tried to frame the forthcoming U.S. Nuclear Posture Review as a White House-Pentagon schism. Much to Thune’s chagrin, however, Navy CNO Adm. Gary Roughead said he had “been very comfortable with the discussions that we've been having.”

Last week, Thune decided to try try again. This time, he asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norman Schwartz during a SASC hearing whether New START and the Quadrennial Defense Review would require cuts to the U.S. bomber fleet. Said Thune:

THUNE: Now, when I posed the question about the substantial cut to the bomber force to Admiral Mullen a few weeks ago, he said there is currently consideration for a reduction in the number of overall bombers in relation to the START follow-on treaty. That's cause for concern in my view because I've long expressed the fear that there -- it would be proposed by the administration -- in effect a way to negotiate the bomber leg of the nuclear triad away. And – are these not substantial cuts to the bomber force that -- as they're being envisioned by the QDR?

When I first read that, I thought, “Whoa, that’s weird, Mullen said New START would require bomber cuts? I think I’d remember that!” So I checked the transcript. Here’s what Adm. Mullen actually said on February 2:

THUNE: Do you plan on retiring any bomber aircraft in the near future? And, I guess, a following question would be what are the assumptions that are lying what appears to be a substantial reduction in the number of bombers?

MULLEN: I'm not -- I am not aware that -- that we are, although I -- I'd certainly would want to check for the record to make sure that -- that -- that I've got that right, but there certainly hasn't been any big discussion about the retirement of bombers.

Apparently worried about his initial uncertainty on this question, Mullen waited until the end of the hearing and then asked to set the record straight. He then said:

MULLEN: Mr. Chairman, just one for the record and it's -- it's brief. Senator Thune's question I spoke, he was asking about decommissioning bombers and in fact what I didn't say was there is consideration for a reduction in number of bombers and overall start in negotiations which are ongoing and which have not come to conclusion yet.

Now, this is ambiguous, but I read it as Mullen saying that while New START may reduce the number of nuclear-coded bombers permitted per side, the bombers won’t need to be decommissioned (i.e. cut up). Still, it’s pretty unclear. Luckily, Schwartz brought his A game and offered a solid explanation. He told Thune:

SCHWARTZ: With respect to potential changes in mission, I do not foresee a reduction in B-52 force structure if there is an adjustment to nuclear tasking. As you are well aware, the B-1 is not a nuclear- tasked platform. The B-52 is. If there's a requirement for fewer B- 52s on the nuclear side, we will still require their capability on the conventional side. They simply will no longer be dual-tasked.

THUNE: Do you think that the cuts to delivery vehicles contemplated in the START treaty, though, and those negotiations are likely to come primarily out of the bomber force?

SCHWARTZ: Sir, I don't think that will be the case. I do not.

Well said, General.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Congress, Senate, Posture Review, Air Force (all tags)

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)

During last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2011 U.S. Navy budget request, Senator John Thune (R-SD) stuck to his parochial and political guns by quizzing the witnesses about U.S. nuclear force posture. His line of attack on the administration’s policy process suggests an argument that opponents of New START may advance during Senate debate on the agreement, whenever that occurs.

Following an exchange on nuclear delivery vehicles (pun!), Thune cited last year’s Guardian article and asked whether it was true that President Obama had rejected the Pentagon’s previous Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) draft because it was too timid. This question dovetailed with the “numbers game” criticism I dissected last week, wherein conservatives claim that the White House is cutting nuclear weapons sans either strategy or international/ intragovernmental consultations.

In response, Navy CNO Adm. Gary Roughead detailed just how inclusive and accountable the Obama administration’s NPR process has been. He said:

I've been involved in the NPR and I believe that the process we've had, the considerations we've had, has placed great value on our nuclear deterrent force, all legs of that triad, and the considerations of being able to feel the strategic needs of the nation.

[snip]

I'm very comfortable with the discussions we've had, the involvement that we've had, and how we're looking at things.

[snip]

I think as we have worked our way through what's a very complex process, I've been very comfortable with the discussions that we've been having, sir.

Policymakers and analysts will inevitably disagree about what the new NPR contains. Yet there is clear evidence that the White House has not unilaterally imposed its agenda on the Pentagon. The process has been collaborative, responsible, and, perhaps as a consequence, a teensy bit behind schedule.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Senate, Congress, Posture Review, Obama Administration (all tags)

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee today released three excellent policy reports on nuclear weapons issues:

1. The Follow-on START Agreement: Responding to False Claims (3/3/10)

2. A New START Treaty Is Critical to U.S. National Security (3/3/10)

3. The President's Budget Makes Vital Investments for Maintaining Our Robust Nuclear Stockpile, Minimizing Proliferation Risks, and Halting the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

Read 'em while they're hot!

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization (all tags)

Despite repeated assertions from both U.S. and Russian officials since December that the New START agreement is on the verge of completion, we’re still waiting for the new treaty.  U.S. and Russian negotiators returned home last weekend, and are expected back in Geneva to resume negotiations on either March 8 or March 15.

So what’s the hold up?  I’ve run across a few reasons:

• It takes time to turn agreements reached in principle into treaty text.  It also takes time to hash out the various annexes, the Memorandum of Understanding, and other associated and supplemental documents that will come with the treaty.

• Russia is not in a hurry to sign a new agreement.  According to a former senior U.S. official who spoke to Laura Rozen, the Russians “are haggling, fighting internally, and trying to figure out how to get more water out of a stone.”  They’re also worried that the U.S. Senate could fail to ratify the agreement.

• Verification.  A senior U.S. official stated in an interview with CNN that “some niggling technical details,” perhaps regarding how to verify actual warhead loadings, are still being worked out.

• Missile defense.  According to a number of different reports, including this one by McClatchy’s Johnathan Landay, missile defense has emerged as an issue.  If Russia is in fact in no hurry to sign an agreement, missile defense could be their chosen means of obstruction.

I want to focus on the missile defense angle for the time being, specifically the Landay piece.  Not only does the article contain a few mix-ups, but I think the impasse is being blown out of proportion, especially since a way forward seems readily apparent.  (Note: this post turned into something much longer than I had hoped so if you have better things to do, I’d suggest doing them; if only I could spin succinct beats like Travis)...  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, missile defense (all tags)

From the gang called Russians with attitudes, crazy motherf***** named Putin said yesterday that Russia should proceed with building a new nuclear-capable bomber.

Putin’s statement comes as President Obama is ramping up funding for development of the next generation U.S. nuclear submarine and bomber.

Now boys, are we merely seeking to keep capabilities in tip top shape, or are we having a resolve contest in the middle of negotiating a nuclear reductions treaty? Yes yes, we’re all seriously committed to blowing each other up in the most stylish manner possible. Let’s get on with the reductions now, shall we?

Alternatively: pandering to Russian military-industrial complex while recapturing Soviet glory days = Putin for Prez 2012.

UPDATE 3/3: In retrospect, the picture caption probably should have been “Long pole in the nuclear tent.” I regret the oversight.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Russia, New START, Posture Review, Navy, Air Force (all tags)

Plutonium Page had a nice story yesterday about some of the reporting on and conclusions people are drawing from the delays in the Nuclear Posture Review and the New START negotiations.  You can read the post here.

Full disclosure: John and I make an appearance.  Quoth John:

I know I'm more optimistic than most people, but on the New START agreement, you have Republicans such as McCain of Arizona and Lugar of Indiana and Corker of Tennessee have already more or less endorsed the treaty. You also have ten Senators who signed a letter in 2009 telling the Obama administration not to [weaken] missile defense, but saying it's important to negotiate a New START treaty. Among the signers are people like Jon Kyl, and Sessions of Alabama, and Lieberman of Connecticut, and others.

But again, it is true that things could get delayed. The Nuclear Posture Review has been delayed. The signing of the New START agreement has been delayed, and Senate consideration of the treaty is [therefore] delayed.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review (all tags)

The Cable's Josh Rogin has added an important update to his February 24 story on the allegedly bleak prospects for a Senate ratification vote on New START in 2010.  According to a spokesperson for Senate majority leader Harry Reid,

Senator Reid has long been expecting to receive and consider the START treaty during the 2010 calendar year. We have seen nothing to this point that would alter this expectation.  Arms control treaties have always been handled in a bipartisan manner and, once the Senate receives all the details on this particular treaty, Senator Reid is confident this tradition, which is critical to our national security, will continue.

Clearly the longer it takes for the U.S. and Russia to actually complete New START, the more difficult it will be to get a ratification vote in 2010.  But Reid's statement demonstrates that the judgment expressed by Rogin's "multiple Hill sources" was premature and that these sources may have come from only one side of the aisle.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, NEW START (all tags)

While many people were rightly upset over a  recent piece in The Cable by Josh Rogin entitled "'New START" dead on arrival?" they may have overlooked some very important words by Arizona Senator John Kyl.

Kyl is the bête noire of those promoting a new nuclear reductions treaty and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

He has sent a series of missives along with many of his colleagues raising issues such as nuclear weapons modernization and missile defense. He has also delivered a number of speeches on the same topics.

As the British would say, he is constantly throwing a spanner into the works (i.e., monkey wrenches).  

But check out what Sen. Kyl said in the Rogin story:

"Unless it is accompanied by a [nuclear] modernization program that satisfies the requirements of the secretary of defense, it would be very difficult for the Senate to support the new START treaty."

If that is his gold standard, then he will get his wish -- perhaps the gold, silver and bronze...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization, Joe Biden (all tags)