Obama’s Nuclear Spending Spree

More nukes, more problems - “The president's budget request for fiscal year 2017 includes large increases for new nuclear weapons... At the same time, the budget reduces funding for critical programs to prevent nuclear terrorism… While increasing funding for nuclear weapons we don't need, the budget cuts funds for conventional helicopters, fighter planes, and ships — the weapons we actually use... Obama is on course to leave a legacy that boosts, not busts, America's nuclear arsenal,” writes Ploughshares Fund’s Policy Director Tom Collina for Huffington Post.

--“But there is still time for Obama to live up to his words and set a new course. Two new reports from the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the centrist Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provide critical new data that can help inform strategies for cutting back our bloated — and dangerous — plans for new nuclear weapons… We must act now to make sure our country stops throwing money at the weapons of the past, and starts investing in protecting our futures.” Full story here. http://huff.to/20rnJW6

See also - “Quick Take on the FY 2017 NNSA Budget Request,” by Stephen Young for the Union of Concerned Scientists. http://bit.ly/1omLy68

Restarting after New START - “Five years after entry into force of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, it is clear that what was hoped to be the beginning of a new set of major U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaties will instead be the first and last under the Obama administration… [But] time has not necessarily run out for some final moves before the president leaves office in just over 11 months,” writes Chris Schneidmiller for the Exchange Monitor.

--“A State Department official said the administration has made clear it intends to ‘run through the tape. We’re not going to slow down or sit on the sidelines. We’re going to be looking for opportunities to make progress.’” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, “said Obama’s proposal from a June 2013 speech in Berlin — that the United States could reduce U.S. deployed strategic weapons by up to one-third without weakening its deterrent — was still on the table.”

--Obama also has other options to move forward on nuclear weapons policy, said Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association. Even in the current climate, “The United States could reinforce the global norm against nuclear weapons testing via a U.N. resolution. [Reif] also urged ‘common sense and cost-effective’ pullbacks from the current projected $350 billion, decade-long U.S. plan for strategic forces operations. The administration should also initiate a global dialogue on nuclear restraint and disarmament.” Full story here (subscription required). http://bit.ly/1TlHEWi

Tweet - @globalzero: Hey, #GOPDebate candidates: Tough guys cut nukes. #RaceToZero #Reagan

UK Trident plan mired in doubt - “The shadow defence secretary has claimed the programme to replace Trident is “in trouble” and accused the government of trying to hide its difficulties. Emily Thornberry, who is conducting a defence review for Labour, told the Guardian the government had delayed holding a vote on renewing the four submarines built to carry nuclear weapons because it does not have a proper proposal to present and it cannot stand up to scrutiny,” writes Rowena Mason for The Guardian.

--“[Thornberry] also raised concerns about links between the government and big defence suppliers. ‘When you are the only client and you have only one provider, you can end up with a very cosy relationship. Prices just keep escalating,’ she said. ‘The Single Source Regulations Office is supposed to oversee the cuddly relationship between these providers and the MoD. But the chairman, Jeremy Newman, has just resigned without a replacement.’” Find the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1QGhQz8

See also - “Ken Livingstone brands US Defence Secretary's comments on UK's Trident deterrent 'rubbish,'” by Ashley Cowburn in the Independent. http://ind.pn/20XV2pA

China should keep its finger off the trigger - “China's military wants to put its relatively small nuclear arsenal on hair-trigger alert for the first time, according to newly translated documents. That's not good. Such a radical departure from the country's longtime nuclear policy could pose a threat not only to the United States, but also to China itself. Gregory Kulacki, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, discovered evidence of this potential policy change in a number of Chinese military documents,” writes Elliott Negin for Huffington Post.

--“The United States has a strong incentive to dissuade China from adopting a hair-trigger policy… Putting weapons on alert increases the risk of nuclear launches instigated by accidents or false warnings. And a mistaken launch due to a false warning is more likely to happen during the development of a new warning system. Indeed, the record shows that it was in the early days of U.S. and Soviet warning systems when technical glitches and human errors were a particular problem.” Read the full piece here. http://huff.to/1TcMJjm

See also - “Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War,” a new report by The Union of Concerned Scientists. http://bit.ly/1POMfeZ

Unseen victims of the first atomic bomb - On July 16, 1945 the Manhattan Project resulted in the world’s first detonation of a nuclear weapon in the New Mexico desert. “‘We were unknowing, unwilling, and uncompensated guinea pigs in the world's largest science experiment,’ says Tina Cordova... about the event that would mark the beginning of a long legacy of contamination felt by the residents of New Mexico, as the impoverished state became the centre of the nation's plutonium economy,” writes Samuel Gilbert for Al Jazeera.

--“As Hans Kristensen [Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists] explains: ‘In the early years when testing began, some of the immediate consequences were felt by those downwind of the massive blasts. These people are still affected to this day. It has been, without exception, very hard to get the government to accept responsibility.’” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1SQzXZM

Iran’s elections approach - “The question surrounding [the elections] in the West is whether Iranian president Rouhani’s reform-leaning compatriots will be able to take advantage of the nuclear deal to strengthen its political positioning in Tehran... The Obama administration’s approach presumes that, with economic opportunity and the raised expectations of the Iranian people, Iran’s hardliners will accommodate popular interests in time… This bet remains… valid,” writes Richard Nephew for the Brookings Institution.

--“Washington should embrace the opportunity afforded by the [Iran Deal] to restore ties frayed with other countries in the Middle East and to ensure that Iran understands that, while it has a place in the region, it will not be permitted to dominate it. This should include continued attempts by the Obama and future administrations to build a new relationship with Iran… We must also make clear that we do not seek further confrontation with Iran as we see how that country continues to evolve.” Full article here. http://brook.gs/1RJJHn5

See also - Listen to Ariane Tabatabai on the future of the Iran Deal in the Georgetown Public Policy Review. http://bit.ly/1oGHNIt

China’s troubled relationship with North Korea - “China regards stability on the Korean peninsula as its primary interest. Its support for North Korea ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border and provides a buffer between China and the democratic South, which is home to around 29,000 U.S. troops and marines. “For the Chinese, stability and the avoidance of war are the top priorities,” says Daniel Sneider of Stanford’s Asia-Pacific Research Center,” write Eleanor Albert and Beina Xu for Defense One.

--“For now, policy failure on the peninsula has dampened hopes for a de-escalation of regional tensions. Though Beijing, Seoul, and Washington have voiced apparent solidarity for a denuclearized North Korea, differences remain over how best to strip the country of its nuclear threat. But ‘there’s an increasing understanding that North Korea does not provide the kind of stable neighbor and element of the neighborhood that China likes,’ says former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and Six Party Talk negotiator Christopher R. Hill.” Find the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1Qj0DBJ

Tweet - @Cirincione: S. Korean rightists want “peaceful” nuclear weapons. You know, the kind you’d set off in your backyard on holidays. http://reut.rs/1oD6SUK

Fire nears illegal nuke waste - “Several thousand shipments [of waste from test bombs] were illegally dumped at the landfill in north St. Louis County, in violation of federal standards; they contained an estimated 43,000 tons of radioactive uranium processing wastes and contaminated soil… A landfill adjoined to the West Lake dump has experienced a growing underground fire for the past five years. The fire is estimated to be about 1,000 feet from the radioactive material,” writes Robert Alvarez in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

--“The landfill fire, first detected in 2010, underscores a systematic failure by the US nuclear weapons program, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency to correct this transgression... The West Lake problem was allowed to slip, by default, through the bureaucratic cracks, contaminating the environment for decades while the government did little or nothing.” Read the analysis here. http://bit.ly/1XozX1Z

Video - Watch Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione speak on the North Korea plutonium reactor on BBC World Service. http://bit.ly/1TlFdmm

Quick Hits:

--“Nuclear Ban Treaty Seeks to Make an End Run Around Nuclear Powers,” writes Russ Wellen for Foreign Policy In Focus. http://bit.ly/1VjUQd9

--“​Foster Calls For Robust Funding For The International Atomic Energy Agency,” a press release from U.S. Rep. Bill Foster. http://1.usa.gov/1KUbPCv

Events:

--“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

--“Live from L: The Iran Nuclear Deal,” with six speakers. Feb. 18 from noon to 1:30 p.m. at George Washington University, Burns Moot Courtroom, Washington. Register online. http://bit.ly/1Xvs8aR

--“North Korea: The Human Rights and Security Nexus,” featuring Michael Kirby, Chair, United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea; Sonja Biserko, President, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia; Marzuki Darusman (invited) UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation on Human Rights in the DPRK; Signe Poulsen Head, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Seoul; and Robert King, Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, U.S. Department of State. Feb. 19 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:20 p.m. at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, 2nd Floor Conference Center, 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington. http://bit.ly/20jOMTb

--“Global Threats Facing the Next President - Congresswoman Jane Harman,” presented by the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service. Feb. 22 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. PST. Located at the Sutardja Dai Hall, Banatao Auditorium, Berkeley, CA 94709. Register here. http://bit.ly/1QjFCAw

--Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, hearing on “Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Programs,” featuring Frank Klotz, Undersecretary for Nuclear Security and five other witnesses. Feb. 23 at 2:30 p.m. at 232 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington. Webcast on the committee website. http://1.usa.gov/1o2ystZ