ICBMs, Budgets and Modern Defense Priorities

March 10, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Relics - “Intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads are the most fearsome weapons devised by man -- and today among the least useful. In his review of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, prompted by personnel problems, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel shouldn't be afraid to step back and acknowledge the obvious: Land-based missiles are obsolete…The sense that this doctrine is no longer relevant to modern defense has apparently infected the Air Force units that operate the missiles. Reports of drug use, drunkenness and cheating on proficiency tests led Hagel to call for the review. This wasn't the first such scandal. The underlying problem is that ICBMs have become a weapon without a purpose,” writes Bloomberg in an editorial.

--”At a time of budget stringency, the Pentagon expects to spend about $1 trillion over the next 30 years on modernizing its aging nuclear "triad" of land-based missiles and nuclear-armed bombers and submarines. Almost all of these weapons are nearing the end of their planned operational lives. It's a good moment to think afresh about cost-effectiveness in nuclear deterrence.” http://bv.ms/1cqnmbn

Defense spending realities - “Maintaining and recapitalizing U.S. strategic nuclear forces will be expensive, at a time when fiscal realities will undoubtedly continue to constrain the defense budget. Washington thus should consider how, in an era of limited defense dollars, it might adjust its strategic force structure,” writes Steven Pifer in The National Interest. “Given fiscal realities, it would be prudent to anticipate that the nuclear part of the budget will come under pressure in future years.”

--“If tight budgets require that the United States reduce its strategic forces, what options might it consider?” Pifer examines options for restructuring the submarine force, sustaining the Minuteman III ICBM and changing the bomber mission. Full analysis here. http://bit.ly/1lO5r1y

Tweet - @insidedefense: Lawmaker Presses For Funding SSBN(X) Outside Shipbuilding Budget. Inside the Navy. (paywall) http://t.co/RyTzoebBn2

Cutting and saving - The Pentagon has lately suggested that “it is not considering options for reducing the high cost of nuclear modernization programs. It should. The United States can stay at warhead levels set by the 2010 New START treaty and still save billions by scaling back and delaying new delivery systems,” writes Tom Collina in Arms Control Now. A two-step plan, including a reduction in the number of planned delivery vehicles and delayed production of new delivery systems until they are really needed, can help meet these objectives. Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1oFoJmL

Crimea and the NPT - “The Russian military deployments in Crimea not only compromise the integrity of a sovereign country in violation of international law, but the Russian actions are inconsistent with the explicit commitments given to Ukraine in the 1994 deal to help secure Ukraine’s non-nuclear status and bring it into the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). As such, Russia’s actions are also a threat to the integrity of the NPT regime, a cornerstone of the global security system upon which Russia, the United States and more than 190 states depend,” writes Daryl Kimball for Arms Control Now. Full analysis here. http://bit.ly/1g9Rc3l

Keeping promises - “Ukraine, not so long ago, had the world's third largest fleet of ICBMs -- as well as the third largest nuclear arsenal. In 1994, Kiev agreed to hand over its nuclear stockpile to Russia for dismantlement in return for certain commitments, including to respect the former Soviet state's sovereignty. This agreement became known as the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances. And today, Moscow's actions in Crimea are in flagrant violation of those commitments,” writes Steven Pifer in Foreign Policy.

--”The United States must live up to its Budapest commitments, if for no other reason than this is part of the price that Washington agreed to pay in 1994 to eliminate 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads and some 220 ICBMs and bombers that were designed to attack America,” Pifer says. “This is not just a question of living up to past U.S. commitments; it is a question of protecting the value of security assurances as leverage for resolving future proliferation challenges. It is possible, for example, that U.S. security assurances of some kind to Iran might play a role in finding a permanent settlement to the Iranian nuclear issue. But security assurances in the future will have little credibility unless the United States fulfills those that it undertook in Budapest.” Full article here. http://atfp.co/1nAHOI4

Cuts to nuclear security- “Just weeks before he heads to The Hague to meet with world leaders for the third Nuclear Security Summit, President Obama has unveiled a budget that includes more than $220 million in cuts for nuclear security programs in the next fiscal year,” with one of the biggest cuts coming to the “International Material Protection and Cooperation program, which works to secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear weapons and materials,” writes Aamer Madhani for USA Today.

--”With the proposed cuts, some nuclear security experts now question whether Obama, who made nuclear security a pet issue during his time in the Senate and launched the biennial Nuclear Security Summit process, remains committed to the issue,” though “administration officials dismiss the notion that the budget reflects a loss of passion on the issue since Obama spoke in his agenda-setting 2009 visit to Prague about his vision for a nuclear-free world.” Full piece here. http://usat.ly/NRLZCR

NNSA should ask for help - “Congressional auditors are telling the Energy Department it should collaborate more with other key agencies on developing ways to secure radiological items,” Rachel Oswald reports for Global Security Newswire. “The department's semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration in 2012 launched a project aimed at encouraging the highest standards around the world in the protection of civilian-sector radiological sources that might be stolen and used by terrorists to build a so-called ‘dirty bomb.’"

--“The nuclear agency set up two pilot sites for the ‘radiological security zone’ project -- one in Peru and another in Mexico -- but neglected ‘to complete some important planning and evaluation steps,’ the Government Accountability Office concluded in a Thursday report. NNSA officials failed to seek input from ‘key stakeholders’ with relevant expertise, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, State Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GAO officials found.” The GAO report also states that "by not following the professional practice of early engagement of key stakeholders, NNSA may have missed opportunities to obtain and leverage the expertise, perspectives, and resources of these agencies." Full story here. http://bit.ly/1fjQmfQ

MOX letter - “South Carolina's senators – and five others from various states – said the money designated for the MOX facility at the Savannah River Site should be used for construction of the facility and not to put it on a cold stand-by,” Derrek Asberry reports for The Aiken Standard. U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., joined senators from Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina in submitting a March 6 letter to the Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. The letter advocates for the construction of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, also known as MOX.” Read the full report here. http://bit.ly/1fjN4cx

Momentum with Iran builds - “European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, world powers’ lead negotiator with Iran, met with top officials in Tehran to build on efforts to parlay an interim nuclear deal into a final accord,” Ladane Nasseri reports for Bloomberg. “This interim agreement is really, really important but not as important as the comprehensive agreement that we are currently engaged in,” Ashton said. Irans Foreign minister Mohammad Zarif responded with a statement saying, “Iran is determined to reach an agreement,” Zarif said at the news conference. “Iran will only accept a solution that is respectful, that respects the rights of the Iranian people. We have no intention to seek nuclear weapons.” Read the full report here. http://bloom.bg/N0Xuqx

China’s red line - “China declared a ‘red line’ on North Korea on Saturday, saying that China will not permit chaos or war on the Korean peninsula, and that peace can only come through denuclearization,” Reuters reports. “China is North Korea's most important diplomatic and economic supporter, though Beijing's patience with Pyongyang has been severely tested following three nuclear tests and numerous bouts of saber rattling, including missile launches.”

--Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters that “The Korean peninsula is right on China's doorstep. We have a red line, that is, we will not allow war or instability on the Korean peninsula." Furthermore, “Wang called upon all parties to ‘exercise restraint’, adding that ‘genuine and lasting peace’ on the peninsula was only possible with denuclearization. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited China last month and said after talks in Beijing that China and the United States were discussing specific ways to press North Korea to give up its nuclear program.” Full report here. http://reut.rs/1fSe2YD

Quick-hit:

--”A World Awash in a Nuclear Explosive?” by Douglas Birch and Jeffrey Smith for The Center for Public Integrity. http://bit.ly/NRSKEy

Events:

--“Iran Nuclear Deal: Breakthrough or Failure?” Discussion with Robert Einhorn, Karim Sadjadpour, and Bret Stephens, and Reuel Gerecht. March 11 from 5:00-7:00 at George Washington University, Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1hFYrQn

--”The Future of Global Nuclear Security Policy Summit.” Discussion with Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, former Sen. Sam Nunn, former Rep. Jane Harman, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Ambassador Kare Aas, former Ambassador Renee Jones-Bos, Matthew Bunn, and William Tobey. March 12 from 8:00-10:00am at Newseum, Knight Broadcast Studio, third floor, 555 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1i0fzAt

--”Nuclear Materials Attractiveness.” Discussion hosted by the Institute of Nuclear Materials. March 13 from 11:30-1:30 at George Washington University, Lindner Family Commons, room 602, 1957 E St. NW. RSVP by email to joseph.glasner@nnsa.doe.gov

--”Nuclear Weapons Gone Missing: What Does History Teach US?” Discussion with Henry Sokolski, Charles Ferguson, Edwin Lyman, and Jodi Lieberman. March 13 from 3:15-5:00, room HC-8, Capitol Building. RSVP by email to monica.herman@mail.house.gov

--“Nuclear Security and Japan’s Plutonium Path.” Discussion with Douglas Birch, Jeffrey Smith, Matthew Bunn, and Ambassador Nobuyasu Abe; moderated by Robert Einhorn. March 14 from 1:30-3:00 at Brookings, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1jRpx7P