Playing Politics with Nuclear Weapons

On the radar: 2nd term Republican presidents; 21st century strategy vs. political point scoring; Bad policy “capable” of green-lighting war; Seoul Communiqué; Sub delay may lead to a cut; Procurement ahead of policy; and How North Korea moves its missiles.

March 28, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

History lesson - “Every second term Republican President since the beginning of the nuclear age...proposed drastic changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” writes Nickolas Roth for Democracy Arsenal. In this light, notes Roth, President Obama’s pursuit of treaties and arms reductions in a second term would be a “continuation of decades of work by Republican Presidents in their second terms.”

--George W. Bush approved a 50% cut to the nuclear stockpile, arguing that nukes are outdated and costly. Reagan signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe Treaty and initiated START negotiations. Nixon signed SALT I and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. Eisenhower established a testing moratorium. http://owl.li/9VPOX

Tweet - @Maddow: Obama vs. Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, and GWB on nukes. Great context, great article: http://t.co/KMEINVrS

The politics of nuclear reductions - “Critics [of Obama’s nuclear initiatives] are playing with fire, undermining efforts to counter nuclear terrorism, stop new nuclear states and prevent nuclear war, intended or accidental,” writes Joe Cirincione in The Huffington Post. “Obama is doing what Republican presidents have done routinely and with much praise ever since President Ronald Reagan paved the way with the first treaty to actually cut nuclear weapons.”

--”Trimming Cold War arsenals, bringing our nuclear strategy into the 21st century, makes sense. It makes sense for Republicans and Democrats. It makes sense for defense hawks and budget hawks. Politicians now trying to score cheap political points do so at the expense of our national security.” http://owl.li/9VPQ3

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.

Senate resolution opens the door for war with Iran - The Senate resolution ruling out containment of Iran has two major flaws, writes retired Air Force colonel Richard Klass. By not defining “nuclear weapons capability,” the resolution confuses adds to the confusion on Iran’s current capability and U.S. red lines.

--And by ruling out containment, the resolution “could be taken to authorize the use of force if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.” http://owl.li/9VQbL

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard: Telling that neither Senate approps ranking member Cochran nor E&W ranking member Alexander signed this letter. http://ow.ly/9VIw3

Date set - Iran expects to reopen talks with the P5+1 on April 13th. Venue discussions are underway, but Turkey appears to be a leading candidate. http://owl.li/9VQd0

Seoul Communiqué - Highlights: “it provides important timelines for advancing nuclear security objectives, such as the target year (end of 2013) for states to announce voluntary actions on minimizing the use of HEU and the goal year (2014) for bringing the amended CPPNM into effect. Secondly, it reflects the need to address both the issues of nuclear security and nuclear safety...It also emphasizes the need to better secure spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Thirdly, it sets out specific measures to prevent radiological terrorism, an issue which was only briefly touched upon at the Washington Summit. http://owl.li/9VQfF

--Full text of the communiqué (pdf) http://owl.li/9VQhU

10 is the new 12 - Three reasons why the Navy probably won’t build 12 new nuclear subs, from Kingston Reif at Nukes of Hazard: 1. "If the Navy thinks it can get through the first few years of the 2030s with 9 or 10 boats, its seems unlikely that it would build two or three additional SSBN(X)s." 2. The Pentagon is going to have to find ways to cut costs if it wants to modernize all three legs of the triad. 3. “Given that policy and budgetary forces appear to suggest a smaller nuclear arsenal, all three legs of the triad are likely to shrink, including the sea-based leg.”

-- And one more reason from CRS’ Amy Woolf: "At one point in time, we were going to buy...24 Ohio-class submarines...the longer you wait, the less you need." http://owl.li/9VQlI

Nuclear spending races ahead - President Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free world, laid out at Prague two years ago, has come up against a competing priority: nuclear modernization plans. “The president says he wants to reduce weapons, but the contracts for the next generation are going ahead," Joe Cirincione told Huffington Post’s Dan Froomkin.

--"We're regenerating the Cold War arsenal; that's the actual procurement policy right now. We're building it all over again -- same stuff, new names.” http://owl.li/9VQnp

Moving North Korea’s missile - North Korea used to assemble its rockets on the launch pad, trucking in the stages separately. Using satellite imagery, David Wright at the Union of Concerned Scientists sees North Korea planning for a different process in the future. http://owl.li/9VQoV