My Blog Posts

• Revised Russian Nuke Doctrine Revisited
  03/10/2010 04:46:34 PM EST
  Guest Post by Cole Harvey On February 5, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev approved the text of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (available in the original Russian here).  The new doctrine had been the subject of some concern before its publication (including from yours truly), following an interview with the secretary of the Russian Security Council in which he suggested that the document would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in “local” conflicts.  Thankfully the new military doctrine outlines a far more circumscribed role for nuclear weapons than the secretary had indicated...
• Senator Feingold Statement on New START
  03/09/2010 04:51:31 PM EST
  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.

• Some legitimate points...
  03/03/2010 06:08:31 PM EST
  attached to Senate Democratic Policy Committee Reports on Nukes
• Senate Democratic Policy Committee Reports on Nukes
  03/03/2010 03:47:19 PM EST
  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!
• Is Missile Defense again an Issue Re: New START?
  03/03/2010 02:46:20 PM EST
  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)...