Russia Ready to Let Nunn-Lugar Lapse

On the radar: Russian statement; Lugar view; Nunn outlook; the Nukes in Cuba we didn’t know about; RFK papers; No realistic “surgical strike” option; Beyond treaties; Alexander on UPF; and Irony in the RoK missile deal.

October 11, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke

Nunn-Lugar - The Russian government has expressed its opposition to renewing agreements underpinning the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program. That program, regarded as one of the most effective national security initiatives in decades, supported the denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, along with the deactivation of more than 7,600 strategic nuclear warheads, and much more. Unless renewed, Nunn-Lugar efforts could wind down in 2013.

--“The American side knows that we would not want a new extension...American partners know that their proposal is not consistent with our ideas about what forms and on what basis further cooperation should be built,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov to Interfax. David Herszenhorn at The New York Times has the story. http://nyti.ms/QfiyqM

Lugar - “During my meetings with the Russian Foreign and Defense Ministries this past August—which were among the first held on the subject of the future of Nunn-Lugar in Russia—the Russian Government indicated a desire to make changes to the Nunn-Lugar Umbrella Agreement, as opposed to simply extending it. At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) in a statement on the recent press report.

--Press release here along with a reminder of Nunn-Lugar’s impressive scorecard. http://1.usa.gov/PpQ4xr

Nunn - “I hope and expect that the U.S.-Russian partnership will be strengthened by any changes to the program and that the lessons learned and best practices developed by our two nations can help other countries meet their security responsibilities in reducing nuclear, biological and chemical dangers around the globe,” said former Sen. Sam Nunn in a statement. http://bit.ly/RiuNVz

Crisis after the Crisis - The Cuban Missile Crisis just got scarier than we thought. On October 28, after Khrushchev withdrew medium-range missile from Cuba, “Unknown to the Americans, the Soviets had brought some 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba -- 80 nuclear-armed front cruise missiles (FKRs), 12 nuclear warheads for dual-use Luna short-range rockets, and 6 nuclear bombs for IL-28 bombers. Even with the pullout of the strategic missiles, the tacticals would stay, and Soviet documentation reveals the intention of training the Cubans to use them.”

--Svetlana Savranskaya reveals a new document from after the crisis and updates the history of how Cuba almost declared itself a nuclear state and how one Soviet diplomat convinced a tense Fidel Castro to allow the rest of the nukes to be pulled out of Cuba. http://bit.ly/RRbm5x

--See also: “What the Cuban Missile Crisis Should Teach Us” by Fred Kaplan at Slate. “Fifty years later, this famous moment of Cold War history remains strangely misunderstood.” http://slate.me/T8wIIV

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

RFK papers - The family of Robert F. Kennedy is going to release 2,700 pages of personal notes and papers from RFK’s archive, including papers from during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Michael Dobbs at Foreign Policy previews the release. This Cold War history gold rush is set to start this morning. http://bit.ly/RigP2M

Tweet - @CTBTO_alerts: 26 yrs ago today in Reykjavik, Reagan & Gorbachev laid the basis for a decade of #nuclear disarmament: INF, START, CTBT http://bit.ly/VUzqI2

No “surgical” option - A recent article in Foreign Policy suggested that the U.S. and Israel could take out Iran’s nuclear facilities in a “surgical” strike lasting a few hours to a day. Senior officials, Israeli experts, and military analysis, however, say “there is no ‘surgical’ strike option, notes Heather Hurlburt at The Daily Beast.

--”Any strike, in order to have even a delaying effect on the Iranian nuclear program, would have to be sustained, broad, and massive...At some point, however, an operation that targets Iran’s whole nuclear infrastructure, air force, and command and control resembles a battlefield amputation, not modern surgery.” Full post here. http://bit.ly/UM4vye

Report - “Beyond Treaties: Immediate Steps to Reduce Nuclear Dangers,” James Acton, ed. for the Carnegie Endowment.

--Includes recommendations for the U.S. and Russia to increase data exchanges, declarations, and scientific partnerships in order to build confidence for future reductions. Contributors include Amb. Steven Pifer, Amb. Linton Brooks, Kingston Reif, Jeffrey Lewis, Eugene Miasnikov, Tong Zhao, and Janne Nolan. (pdf) http://bit.ly/QZRtrC

Quote - “I wish we didn't have to have a redesign, but I'd much rather have a redesign before we start (construction) than to tear the building down after we start because we made a mistake,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on the redesign for the $4-$6 billion Uranium Processing Facility.

--”I'm hopeful they can get to 90 percent design (completed) by September 2013. But if they're not there, I don't want them to start building," said Sen. Alexander. Frank Munger at The Knoxville News Sentinel has the story. http://bit.ly/SNYRIT

Restraint? - It was widely assumed earlier this year that North Korea was on the verge of testing another nuclear device. That dog, however, has not yet barked, and the post-Kim Jong-il has behaved in a relatively restrained manner (the failed Leap Day “satellite” launch aside). Leon Sigal at The National Interest reviews this new behavior and asks if there is an opening for North Korea to fully restrain its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for improved relations with the U.S., Japan and South Korea. http://bit.ly/RihTnm

Report - “Sanctioning Iran: Implications and Consequences” by Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi for the Oxford Research Group. (pdf) http://bit.ly/Q1s0Me

RoK missile deal - “A supreme irony in this latest development is that the United States has given a green light to an ally to develop missiles of a category that it has itself foresworn,” writes Greg Thielmann at Arms Control Now, pointing out that under the 1987 INF treaty the U.S. banned the kinds of missiles South Korea may now pursue.

--”Whatever benefits the agreement might provide for the bilateral U.S.-ROK relationship, it will be more than offset by the damage to U.S. relations with other important players in the region and to the effectiveness of the MTCR world-wide. Rarely has a “security” agreement left so many feeling less secure.” http://bit.ly/PpUoNh