The Sub Threat to the Surface Fleet Budget

On the radar: Nuclear sub costs threaten other programs; Pickering, Cartwright, & Sadjadpour at SFRC; Food aid deal called off; CRS on Iran, Israel, and North Korea; DOE’s spiraling cost estimates; CTBT report tomorrow; the Never-ending Cold War; the Case for disarmament; and Save our missiles.

March 29, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

Rising sub costs - The new nuclear sub plays a big role in the Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan. From the introduction: “The plan is affordable...but presents a resourcing challenge outside the FYDP largely due to the investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program.”

--Translation: new nuclear sub costs aren’t too bad for the next couple of years, but beyond that the program may start to squeeze conventional ships outside the Navy’s budget. The report is available here. (pdf) http://owl.li/9Xhly

--The report confirms that the 2-year delay in SSBN(X) procurement causes the number of subs to drop to 11 ships in 2029 and 10 in 2032, holding there until the number starts to rise in the early 2040s. Navy Times reports. http://owl.li/9Xhoj

Iran testimony - Amb. Thomas Pickering, Gen. James Cartwright, and Carnegie’s Karim Sadjadpour testified before SFRC on “High Stakes and Hard Choices: U.S. Policy on Iran.”

--From Amb. Pickering’s testimony: “My recommendation is that we now take the sanctions pressure and turn it into a useful diplomatic tool to begin serious diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Such a new direction will require much care and management of the rhetoric to cause the diplomatic process move forward.” Full text available here. (pdf) http://owl.li/9Xhqw

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.

Tweet - @Cirincione: US intel says Iran has not yet decided to build a bomb. Military strikes may convince them they need to. http://owl.li/9Xc9m

Launch scuttles nutritional aide - “So the reason, again, why we're not providing that food assistance [to North Korea] at this point is because our confidence in their ability to meet their agreements has been diminished. We do not use it as a lever to change their policies,” said Peter Lavoy, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Security Affairs, in testimony before the HASC. http://owl.li/9XhGD

CRS roundup - “Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities” (pdf) http://owl.li/9XhwV

--”Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses” (pdf) http://owl.li/9XhBj

--”Foreign Assistance to North Korea” (pdf) http://owl.li/9XhDY

GAO on inaccurate cost estimates - “Spiraling cost estimates for a planned plutonium research facility in New Mexico could be further exacerbated by the fact that the future structure is not designed to accommodate key nuclear arsenal, nonproliferation and homeland security needs,” according to a new GAO report. Global Security Newswire has the story. http://owl.li/9XhIc

--Full report available here. http://owl.li/9XhKj

Event - The National Academy of Sciences report, “The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Technical Issues for the United States” is released tomorrow, March 30th, at 1:30. Details and RSVP here. http://owl.li/9EtrX

Understatement - “Controlling costs is going to be a big issue," Gen. Robert Kehler, commander of the US Strategic Command, said of the new nuclear bomber and refueling tanker during a recent SASC hearing. http://owl.li/9XhN9

Weighing options on Iran - “There are many ways a military option could fail, and even more ways that its outcome would be impossible to judge. By contrast, an Iranian nuclear program that has more intrusive inspections and narrower areas of uncertainty puts the United States in a better position than it is in now,” writes Jon Alterman of CSIS.

--”Few view collective [non-military] action as the most desirable course or have much appetite for it. Over the next 5 to 10 years, however, it is likely to provide the best route to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.” http://owl.li/9XhOx

Headline - NYT Editorial: “The Never-Ending Cold War”

--The NYT takes on the political dust up surrounding President Obama’s comments on arms control dialogues with Russia. The editorial reminds, “Every president since Ronald Reagan has reduced the nuclear arsenal significantly. We simply don’t need — and cannot afford — the thousands of weapons still on hand.” http://owl.li/9XhQk

Transitions - @jwolfsthal: “My last day in the White House. It has been an honor to serve Potus, Vpotus and the American people.”

--Jon Wolfsthal will soon take up his new position as Deputy Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute. http://owl.li/9XhSq

Reducing nuclear danger - “Mr. Obama is right to pursue the goal of reducing the danger and fear produced by the world's nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, this is a journey of a thousand miles,” writes the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://owl.li/9XhUJ

The disarmament side of the coin - The world is rightly focused on curbing Iran’s potential to acquire a nuclear weapon. However, the U.S. has 8,500 nuclear warheads in its stockpile. “It is easier to point fingers at others, it seems, than it is to tackle the job of dismantling one's own nuclear complex,” writes Kennette Benedict in The Bulletin. “To make the world safer, the United States needs to focus on reducing its own nuclear weapons arsenals and ensuring its economic security.” http://owl.li/9XhWD

Doomsday caucus - Senators with ICBMs in their states wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the SASC subcommittee on Strategic Forces to “highlight the importance of maintaining a robust fleet of stabilizing, deterring, and affordable Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).”

--They urge the administration to, as it implements New START, preserve 420 deployed ICBMs and keep 450 silos in warm status. Full letter here. (pdf) http://owl.li/9XhZh