Nuke Modernization: The Price Isn’t Right

We can’t afford nuclear modernization - Nuclear modernization projects are estimated to cost more than $700 billion over the next 25 years. “Brian McKeon, principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy… [said] the major bill coming will require serious debate for the next president. ‘We’re looking at that big bow wave and wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it, and probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to answer the question,’ he added with a chuckle,” writes Aaron Mehta for Defense News.

--One element of the planned modernization has received particularly harsh criticism. “Over the past few months, former Defense Secretary William Perry has publicly called for the elimination of the ICBM arm of the triad, calling it a ‘destabilizing’ weapon that encourages an arms race with Russia. ICBMs ‘aren’t necessary… They’re not needed. Any reasonable definition of deterrence will not require that third leg,’ Perry said Dec. 3.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1PYXjLO

Tweet - @KingstonAReif : Early look at FY17 request for major nuke weapons programs (thanks to early AF release of budget). Waiting on ORP http://bit.ly/1V0ZpsX

What would a Sanders nuke force look like? - Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has argued that nukes are “too expensive and pledged to cut $100 billion in nuclear spending over 10 years. Sanders would likely embrace a doctrine called 'minimum deterrence.’” That is, maintaining only enough nuclear capability to provide a credible threat to nuclear adversaries.

--“Although force definitions for minimum deterrence vary, 300 to 400 warheads is a rough estimate… Getting down to that level would require retiring the entire ICBM force, retiring the nuclear bomber force, and reducing the sea-based leg to about six submarines from the current 14.” Mark Cancian has the full story for Breaking Defense. http://bit.ly/1PzG9is

Tweet - @globalzero: #DearFuturePOTUS: We urge you to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

Arms control after Iran deal - “The door is now open to explore with Iran constraints on its missile program in return for lifting UN Security Council missile-related sanctions. Iran’s decision to limit dramatically its nuclear program was based in part on a cost-benefit analysis. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, seemed to conclude that it was better to strengthen Iran’s economy than to continue an unrestricted and very costly nuclear program with high risks and limited benefits,” write William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Greg Thielmann for The National Interest.

--“The objective should be to freeze the current range of Iran’s missiles (around 2,000 km) to complement the nuclear nonproliferation objectives of the JCPOA. To encourage such restraint, the United States and its allies might offer to increase civil and scientific collaboration in many areas, including on Iran’s space program, increasing the chances that Iran’s technological progress is not directed towards military development.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1KAQlKM

Fact-checking the Korean launch - “The North Koreans have reportedly launched what they proclaim is a satellite, mounted on an 80-ton rocket called the Unha-3, which has been in development for the past two decades. If the past is any prologue, we can be reasonably assured that the following three elements will shape our public discussion of the event: assertions that this rocket can be readily converted to be an intercontinental ballistic missile; that North Korea could have weaponized a nuclear weapon; and that the launch proves the need for missile defenses,” writes Theodore Postol for The Boston Globe.

--“This ritual stoking of national anxiety has nothing to do with concerns about real security threats. Instead, it is about increasing the Pentagon’s already bloated arsenal with new, fantastically costly, and nearly useless weapons… All technically refereed analyses outside of the US government are in agreement — the Unha-3 cannot be converted to an ICBM capable of threatening the US mainland.” Find the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1W6MiXn

See also - “Q&A: What do we know about North Korea’s missile capability?” by Anna Fifield for The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/23Sjk39

South Korea may accept U.S. missile defense - “The United States and South Korea said they would begin formal talks about deploying the sophisticated Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, to the Korean peninsula ‘at the earliest possible date.’ … Beijing, at odds with the United States over Washington's reaction to its building of artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea, quickly expressed ‘deep concern’ about a system whose radar could penetrate Chinese territory,” write Andrea Shalal and David Brunnstrom for Reuters.

--“But the North Korean rocket launch, on top of last month's nuclear test, could be a ‘tipping point’ for South Korea and win over parts of Seoul's political establishment that remain wary of such a move, a U.S. official said... Renewed missile-defense discussions with the United States could also send a message to Beijing that it needs to do more to rein in North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, another U.S. official said.” Read full story here. http://reut.rs/1Pwc6YU

Video - Watch Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione on FOX discussing the North Korea satellite launch and the possibility of pressuring China to act by deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system on the Korean peninsula. http://bit.ly/1T3o2G0

Pakistan’s troublesome nukes - “In recent years, the concern over nuclear proliferation has centered on Iran's ongoing effort to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, however, may prove to be just as dangerous and just as destabilizing as that of Tehran's… Moreover, its current focus on deploying theater nuclear weapons, so called… low-yield battlefield weapons, represents a dangerous new strategy that has wide-ranging impact on both the stability of the Indian subcontinent and the threat that a militant organization will obtain a nuclear device,” writes Joseph V. Micallef for The Huffington Post.

--“Battlefield weapons… by their very nature, are more at risk to theft, diversion or unauthorized use. As battlefield weapons they need to be under the control of local commanders. While the decision to deploy them may still be under the national command authority, their actual use has to be left to the commander in the field. Although most of them can be kept disassembled, it is likely that some portion has to be maintained in a ready state if they are to prove useful in stopping an Indian incursion.” Full piece here. http://huff.to/1Qlay3G

Megatons to megawatts facility a disaster - “Time may finally be running out on the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, a multibillion-dollar, over-budget federal project that has been hard to kill… New estimates place the ultimate cost of the facility at between $9.4 billion and $21 billion... Officials warn that the delays in the so-called MOX program are so bad that the plant may not be ready to turn the first warhead into fuel until 2040,” reports James Risen for The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1PiQb9y

See also - “Radioactive Pork Finally on the Chopping Block,” by Lydia Dennett for the Project on Government Oversight. http://bit.ly/1Rm9bqj

Quick Hits:

--“North Korea ‘Restarts’ Yongbyon Plutonium Reactor Used To Fuel Nuclear Weapons,” by Jack Moore for Newsweek. http://bit.ly/20TjxRi

--“Egypt Says Iran Deal Provides New Opening for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Mideast,” by Jay Solomon for The Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/1SETKeu

--“Engage with Russia, and with North Korea,” by Richard Norton-Taylor in The Guardian. http://bit.ly/1Leheiv

--“Why Obama’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Commitments Fell Short,” by Miles Pomper for World Politics Review. Behind subscription wall. http://bit.ly/1QT8iDu

--“Israel’s sea-based nukes pose risks,” by Victor Gilinsky in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. http://bit.ly/1UZfMWH

Events:

--“ISIS’ Hunt for WMDs: Navigating the Nuclear Underworld,” featuring Christopher Chivers, New York Times. Feb 9 from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Washington. RSVP online. Webcast on the CSIS website. http://bit.ly/1T1I8kx

--“Inside the Iran Negotiations,” featuring Wendy Sherman, former Chief U.S. Nuclear Negotiator with Iran. Feb. 9 from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Wilson Center, Sixth Floor, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington. RSVP online. http://bit.ly/20TdJHt

--“What’s Next with Iran? The Future of Its Weapons Program and of Its Relations with the West,” featuring Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund. Feb. 10 at 5:15 p.m. at the World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt St., Baltimore. RSVP online. http://bit.ly/1WnsZJZ

--“The State of the Comprehensive Test Ban and Non-proliferation Treaties,” featuring Susan Burk, former Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation; Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Association; and David Koplow, Georgetown University. Feb. 11 from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. at the Stimson Center, 1211 Connecticut Ave. NW, Eighth Floor, Washington. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1o9DC7E

--“The Realist Case for Eliminating Nuclear Weapons,” featuring Ward Wilson, Rethinking Nuclear Weapons Project. Feb. 17 from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. at Princeton University, 2217 Nassau St., Second Floor Conference Room, Princeton, NJ. http://bit.ly/1mpMvbO