My Blog Posts

• Sell Your Dominoes Someplace Else, We're All Stocked Up Here
  09/02/2010 01:32:27 PM EST
  Friend of NoH Johan Bergenas hit the online pages of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday to make that case that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, while something we should seek to prevent, would not cause a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East.  He makes a persuasive case, because, well…Johan is a persuasive guy.  And did I mention that the piece has a great title: “The Nuclear Domino Myth”?  Nice.   Come get some:

  But there's one problem with this "nuclear domino" scenario: the historical record  widespread nuclear proliferation; 65 years later, only nine countries have developed nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years elapsed between the emergence of the first nuclear state, the United States, in 1945, and the fifth, China, in 1964.

  The next 40 years gave birth to only five additional nuclear countries: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, and North Korea. South Africa voluntarily disarmed in the 1990s, as did Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. After Israel developed a nuclear weapons capability in the late 1960s, no regional nuclear chain reaction followed, even though the country is surrounded by rivals. Nor was there even a two-country nuclear arms race in the region.

  [snip]

  Predictions of catastrophic consequences resulting from a nuclear Iran are not only wrong but counterproductive. The assertion that the widespread proliferation is unavoidable could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of a nuclear domino effect creates an excuse for other Middle Eastern countries -- expecting that their neighbors will be nuclear powers -- to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

  Nightmare scenarios are dangerous for yet another reason: the expected consequences of a nuclear Iran, real or imagined, will determine the policies pursued to prevent Tehran from developing the bomb. If the consequences are out of sync with reality, the methods applied will be disproportional to the threat. Seven years ago, the United States walked into Iraq based on worst-case-scenario predictions about its nuclear program that were far from beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington cannot afford to wage another war on false pretenses.

  There is no question that the world would be better off if Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons, and the international community must use all appropriate measures to prevent Iran -- or any other country -- from doing so. But the case against a nuclear Iran is strong enough without a nuclear domino myth. By invoking worst-case scenarios, policymakers are only clouding nuanced thinking.

• Verification, GOP style
  08/19/2010 04:11:36 PM EST
  Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation Paula DeSutter has spent most of the summer arguing that the New START treaty drops the ball on verification.  This is a pretty daft claim, since DeSutter was one of the ring leaders for an administration that believed verification was neither necessary nor useful.  Recall that the Moscow Treaty was entirely devoid of any detailed data exchanges and monitoring and verification provisions.  In the eyes of DeSutter, President Reagan’s signature phrase “trust but verify” read “trust but don't verify”.     Both Kelsey Hartigan and Greg Thielmann have penned great take-downs of DeSutter's latest contribution, which is particularly stunning and riddled with obfuscation. Writing in the National Review earlier this week, DeSutter alleges:

  Had the administration deemed the data provided under START to be critical, they could have extended the START treaty until negotiations on New START were completed and it was ratified by the U.S. and Russia. Instead, they let START expire and negotiated against a deadline after making clear their desperate desire for getting an agreement.[emphasis mine.]

  Alas, the 2007 version of Paula DeSutter made an extension of START I next to impossible:

  While the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START "has been important and for the most part has done its job," Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter told Reuters the pact is cumbersome and its complicated reporting standards have outlived their usefulness.

  In the post-Cold war era, many provisions of the 1991 START accord, which mandated deep nuclear weapons cuts, "are no longer necessary. We don't believe we're in a place where we need have to have the detailed lists (of weapons) and verification measures," added DeSutter.[emphasis mine.]

  Kelsey also points out that DeSutter ran roughshod over the verification provisions in other key arms control treaties. In last week's Washington Post, Walter Pincus noted that the standard by which many Republican Senators are judging New START is markedly different from the one they used to judge the George W. Bush administration's Moscow Treaty. As we've noted on the blog before, nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of verification.  See below the jump for some choice comments from select Republican Senators on verification during the Moscow treaty debate.  Could it be, as former Bush I national security adviser Brent Scowcroft has suggested, that "some just don't want to give Obama a victory" before the midterm elections? Remember, "trust, but don't verify"...
• Secretary of State Clinton: “When the Senate returns they must act” on New START
  08/11/2010 10:20:58 AM EST
  In a statement on the New START treaty with the press this morning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the full Senate must provide its advice and consent to ratification of the agreement when it returns in September. “Our national security is at risk,” Clinton said. “It’s been more than eight months since we’ve had inspectors on the ground in Russia” who give “a vital window into Russia’s arsenal.” Clinton added: The treaty “will advance our national security and provide stability and predictability between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.” NoH will post a full copy of the statement when it's available. UPDATE 8/11: Secretary Clinton's full statement is pasted below the jump. UPDATE #2 8/11: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) gave a great speech on New START this morning to open the 2010 Strategic Deterrence Symposium in Omaha, Nebraska. His remarks can be found here.
• Yep, and...
  08/05/2010 01:33:29 PM EST
  attached to On Tubes and Budget Games
• Senate Sets September Endgame on New START
  08/03/2010 04:54:54 PM EST
  In the aftermath of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's announcement the Council for a Livable World, the Center's sister organization, issued the following statement: Senate Sets September Endgame on New START FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 3, 2010
  CONTACT: Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 202.546.0795, ext. 2103, kreif@clw.org Washington, D.C. – Council for a Livable World today applauded the decision by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to set a schedule for a vote on the New START treaty in September. This schedule means that the Committee believes it is time to move from hearings and questions to decisions this fall. “The debate over the national security merits of the treaty is over,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council. “New START enjoys overwhelming support from current and retired U.S. military leaders and former high-ranking government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.  The 20 hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other committees to date have built an impressive bipartisan record in support of the treaty and provided answers to all of the key substantive questions about the treaty.” Isaacs added: “As of today, it’s been 241 days and counting since START I expired and with it our on-site monitoring and verification presence in Russia.  The Senate should give its advice and consent to New START as soon as possible because the greater the uncertainties about Russia’s forces, the more likely U.S. defense planners will engage in costly worst case estimates about U.S. force requirements.” New START requires modest reductions in the deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia and restores an essential means of monitoring and verifying each side’s nuclear forces that has been absent since the START I treaty expired on December 5, 2009.   “A handful of Republican Senators have indicated that they would like to support New START pending resolution of their concerns over funding for the nuclear weapons complex, which is separate from the limits and verification provisions in the treaty,” said Kingston Reif, the Council’s Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. "I am confident that when a vote occurs the Senate will provide its advice and consent to the treaty by an overwhelming margin.”   “Nevertheless, the longer the treaty remains in limbo, the less information we will have about Russia’s still enormous deployed nuclear arsenal,” Reif added.  “Raising questions and concerns, while part of the process, should not be used as an excuse to delay the treaty indefinitely.” # # # Council for a Livable World is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and increasing national security.