Nonpro Positions of WMD Coordinator Gary Samore

The Center's Executive Director, John Isaacs, produced a great report on the positions of Gary Samore, who was recently tapped by President Obama to be WMD Coordinator. The text of the report is below.

Gary Samore Joining the Obama Administration as WMD Coordinator: A Look at His Issue Positions

Gary Samore has been selected by President Barack Obama to coordinate government-wide efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction proliferation. As “Nonproliferation Czar,” Samore will be a member of the National Security Council staff. His portfolio will include everything from nuclear and conventional arms control to threat reduction to nuclear terrorism.

Samore previously was employed by the Council on Foreign Relations. His professional experience includes past tours on the NSC (1995-2001) as well as positions at the State Department, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Rand Corporation, and Harvard.

Below is a brief summary of some of Samore’s recently expressed views on key nuclear nonproliferation issues.

U.S. NUCLEAR POLICY

On reaffirming the U.S. commitment to nuclear disarmament

“The first thing the Obama administration needs to do is a very forceful statement of policy that nuclear disarmament remains the ultimate U.S. objective, even though it's not going to be achieved anytime soon.”

- Panel discussion on U.S.-Japan relations, December 2008

NORTH KOREA

On providing assistance to North Korea

“Washington and Seoul should coordinate some energy and economic assistance projects to North Korea in return for North Korean disarmament steps.”

- Speech on inter-Korean relations, September 2008

On normalizing relations with North Korea and signing a peace treaty

“I think the first immediate step for President Obama when he comes in is through statements and speeches to reassure the Asian countries and to warn the North Koreans that the U.S. is not going to fully normalize relations with North Korea, sign a peace treaty with North Korea until it gives up its nuclear weapons.”

- Panel discussion on North Korea, November 2008

On staying committed to the long, painful process of negotiations with North Korea

“I don't think we need to run the risk of precipitating a crisis with North Korea by threatening them. I think the North Koreans are willing to play ball in exchange for food and heavy fuel oil and fertilizer and so forth but in a process that's going to be torturous…We can't ignore North Korea because they'll make mischief. We can't coerce them and force them to give up their nuclear weapons. And the only alternative, I think, is a long-term disarmament process which will involve very painful, slow, incremental progress.”

- Panel discussion on North Korea, November 2008

On the long-term strategy for dealing with North Korea

“At some point, I think, the North Korean regime is likely to fade and collapse. So our game is to sort of manage this process until it eventually disappears.”

- Panel discussion on North Korea, November 2008

IRAN

On Iran’s nuclear weapon timeline

“In my view, Iran is probably still a few years away from having a credible break out option – in terms of being confident that it could produce sufficient quantities of weapons grade material to support a small nuclear arsenal before any action could be taken to prevent it, but this a matter of political judgment, not technical certainty.”

- Speech on Iran, December 2008

On the near-term objective for engaging Iran

“The immediate objective of engaging Iran is to restore the suspension of Iran’s enrichment program in exchange for a suspension of sanctions. This ‘double suspension’ would create space for much more complicated and lengthy international negotiations on the nuclear issue and bilateral U.S.-Iranian negotiations on other issues.”

- Speech on Iran, December 2008

On involving other countries in negotiations with Iran

“Before we enter into…talks with Iran, we will need to try to reach agreement with other countries – such as Russia, China, and the European powers - that the U.S. is offering reasonable terms and that the failure to reach an agreement is Iran’s fault, in order to justify subsequent steps, such as serious sanctions or - as a last resort – military force.”

- Speech on Iran, December 2007

On when to talk to Iran, and who we should be talking to

“I don't think we can afford to wait. I think Iran is moving ahead so quickly that we should at least try to find a way to engage Iran without helping Ahmadinejad take credit for bringing the Americans to the bargaining table. And I guess the way to do that is to try to make a direct approach to the Supreme Leader, who is, after all, the most important figure in terms of making decisions on foreign and defense policy. So I think, just tactically, it would make sense to try to have a representative of President Obama meet with a representative of the Supreme Leader and see if they could begin a dialogue.”

- Panel discussion on the Middle East, January 2009

On how a military strike against Iran would be perceived by the international community

“I would argue that the use of military force in that kind of scenario where Iran is detected trying to make a breakout, where they've expelled the inspectors or where we learn that they're producing weapons-grade uranium, I think that's relatively easy to justify to an international audience…That's not to say the use of military force is necessarily a wise thing to do, but it's much easier to justify under those circumstances.”

- Panel discussion on the Middle East, December 2008

On effectively communicating the threat of attack to Iran

“We also want the Iranians to believe that if they actually try to make nuclear weapons, or if they build secret facilities that we detect, they run the risk of being attacked.”

- Panel discussion on Iran, September 2008

John Isaacs on Obama Admin Personnel and Nuclear Policies

The Center's Executive Director, John Isaacs, has a great update on incoming Obama Administration personnel and the implications on the direction of his nuclear policies, included below.

People looking for clues about the nuclear policies of the incoming Obama Administration tended to draw overly-broad implications from the big-dog appointments announced a few weeks ago: Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates continuing as Secretary of Defense and General Jim Jones as National Security Advisor.

It is the next level of appointments that will tell us more about the direction of Obama's nuclear policies.

While you were away (or still are) celebrating the holidays, the first key appointments below the cabinet-level have been made and the news is good.

Take the announcement of Dr. John Holdren as the President's Science Adviser. Holdren is a leading expert on nuclear arms issues.

A 1997 he chaired a National Academy of Sciences report entitled “The Future of Nuclear Weapons Policy” that recommended reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear forces to 1,000 total warheads and exploring going below that number, taking nuclear weapons off hair trigger alert and adopting a no-first use policy.

In a 2005 Arms Control Today article, Dr. Holdren argued that the 1997 proposals were still relevant and recommended ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, moving to very deep reductions of nuclear weapons to a few hundred on each side, and trying "create the conditions that would make possible a global prohibition of nuclear weapons along the lines of those already in force against chemical and biological weapons."

James B. Steinberg, who has served in other government positions, has been named to the number two position at the Department of State. He too has long been involved in nuclear issues.

On January 1, 2008, he wrote "Washington must begin devaluing nuclear weapons."

In a November 2007 speech, he praised the Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn proposal for a world free of nuclear weapons and applauded some of their endorsed steps, including ratification of the test ban treaty, a fissile material cut-off treaty and a reopened debate on missile defenses.

In a 2006 OpEd, he suggested that the U.S.-India deal "will seriously undermine the longer-term effort to rein in the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons programs."

Antony Blinken, most recently staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been named Vice President-elect Joseph Biden's Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.

Blinken joined with Steinberg -- and a number of other authors who could well be appointed to key Obama Administration positions -- in a July 2008 Center for New American Security report that recommended: "The next president should reaffirm that America seeks a world free of nuclear weapons."

The report suggested a number of steps in that direction, including:

"The United States should propose to Moscow new negotiations that would reduce their respective nuclear inventory to 1,000 weapons of all ranges. The inspection and transparency provisions of existing arms control agreements that are due to expire in 2009 would be maintained. And remaining forces would end their reliance on hair-trigger alerts to ensure survivability. In addition, the United States should ratify the CTBT at the earliest practical opportunity and propose to negotiate a worldwide, verifiable ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes."

While there are many other key appointments to be made, these first appointments are a good start and presage significant progress on nuclear issues.

Click here for the full list of open key positions, including transition personnel.

Missile Defense Monitor

Big news on the missile defense front this week as Poland and the United States signed a missile defense agreement. For an assessment of what it all means, check out this analysis I just published on the Center's website.

Also, Center Executive Director John Isaacs appeared on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on Wednesday to discuss the agreement. A transcript, audio, and video of Isaac's appearance can be found here.

John Isaacs: Hand-Wringing over Success in North Korea

The Center’s Executive Director, the indomitable John Isaacs, put together a great piece yesterday that reviews the recent events involving North Korea’s nuclear facilities and the ensuing uproar by conservatives domestically.

Isaacs begins:

The same neoconservatives who dominated the Bush administration for almost eight years are now screaming like stuck pigs over the administration’s latest moves on North Korea. You would have thought that the heathens had been let into the temple—or, even worse, that W. had appointed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Cabinet positions.

President George W. Bush announced on June 26 that the United States would take steps to remove the last remaining Stalinist regime from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. This step was in return for North Korea submitting a long-delayed official declaration about its nuclear program.

Click here for the full article.

Obama vs. McCain: Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement, on Nuclear Weapons

In a campaign that features back and forth on issues large and small, where Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on everything from taxes to offshore drilling to Social Security to Iraq, it is amazing how much agreement there is on nuclear weapons issues. As Executive Director John Isaacs told the Los Angeles Times on July 13, "We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected." In this short analysis, provided below, Isaacs lists seven areas of agreement and six of disagreement between Obama and McCain on nuclear weapons.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD
Obama and McCain both have pledged to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide, a goal originally espoused by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry.

DECREASE IN U.S. NUCLEAR ARSENAL
Both of the candidates seek to reduce the United States' nuclear arsenal. They have pledged to retain a reasonable nuclear deterrent while still fulfilling the United States' commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY (START)
Both candidates encourage the negotiation of an extension of the START nuclear agreement with Russia. Obama introduced S. 1977 in August 2007, a bill fortifying U.S. non-proliferation policy that included provisions related to START. In his May 2008 speech on nuclear security, McCain reaffirmed the need to pursue "binding verification measures" based on those included in START.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA)
Both candidates support strengthening the IAEA. Obama's S. 1977 resolution authorized $15 million annually for IAEA activity. McCain is also a proponent of increased funding, as well as increased transparency and compliance on the part of the nuclear countries under IAEA scrutiny.

NUNN-LUGAR COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Both of the candidates support an increase in Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

FISSILE MATERIAL CUT-OFF TREATY
Both Obama and McCain have indicated that they will work for a global treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY (NPT)
Both of the candidates have affirmed their ongoing support for the NPT, emphasizing that they will work towards better global enforcement.

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY (CTBT)
Obama supports ratification of the CTBT, while McCain said he will "reconsider" the treaty.

U.S.-INDIA 123 AGREEMENT
While both candidates voted for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement, Obama's vote included amendments making the deal conditional upon India ending its military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that the agreement will not be used to aid India in creating new nuclear weapons.

RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD (RRW)
Obama has stated that he does not support the Reliable Replacement Warhead at this time. McCain has yet to offer a stance on the issue.

IRAN
While both Obama and McCain consider Iran a threat, Obama has been a stronger proponent of engaging Iran in diplomatic negotiations. McCain has taken a harder line.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Obama opposes the Yucca Mountain storage facility, citing safety concerns. McCain supports the Yucca Mountain facility.

MISSILE DEFENSE
Obama is not convinced of the necessity of the expansive missile defense plan laid out by the Bush administration (which calls for a third missile defense site to be built in Europe). McCain, however, is a strong supporter.

Research assistance provided by Kimberly Mills and Meghan Warren.

McCain vs. Obama on National Security Issues

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, put together a terrific analysis which compares and contrasts Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, North Korea, and others. Excerpted below are the relevant portions; the full analysis can be found here.

The two major presidential candidates left standing would make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the George W. Bush administration over the last seven years. Not surprisingly, exactly what kind of changes depends on who ends up on the steps of Capitol Hill taking the oath of office in January 2009 -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

The following analysis is based on several indicators: the candidates' U.S. Senate voting records; their national security platforms as laid out in articles, op-eds and speeches; and their responses to queries in debates, public appearances and questionnaires. Although campaign pledges and voting records do not always accurately translate into actual policy, they can provide important clues as to the future president's inclinations.

IRAN POLICY

President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.

McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an audience: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions." He also rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran.

Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. He has said "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts."

In the same speech, however, Obama promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests." He has said also that it "would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on Iran. Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

World free of nuclear weapons: In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a "world free of nuclear weapons." In their article by that name, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and former Secretary of Defense William Perry urged the United States to lead an international effort to rethink traditional deterrence, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and take other steps toward the longer term goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Obama has been clear in his support of their effort. In response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire, he promised: "As president, I will take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated."

In a May 2008 speech, McCain also endorsed the concept: "A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, 'our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.' That is my dream, too."

New nuclear weapons: The Bush administration has put forward proposals to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; however, these plans might be seen as conflicting with U.S. efforts to restrain other states' nuclear ambitions. McCain has supported the proposed new nuclear weapons programs. In four key Senate votes from 2003 to 2005, McCain voted to proceed with the work on such weapons. But in his May 2008 speech, he declared: "I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense." McCain did not express an opinion on another new nuclear weapons program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, opposed the new weapons. He has not been categorical in response to the Council for a Livable World's queries about his position on new nuclear weapons, responding that he did not support "a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead]."

Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): One of the longest sought goals of the nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward for a new vote.

McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: "The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent." More recently, McCain has committed to continuing the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that has existed since 1992, and promised to take "another look" at the test ban treaty. Although Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, he has promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of his first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty.

Nuclear non-proliferation: Efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries have faltered during the Bush administration. McCain has promised expanded proliferation efforts, increasing funding for American non-proliferation programs, strengthening international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, increasing funding for the International Atomic Energy Administration and negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

Obama has committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office: "I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office." He has also promised to seek a global ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and "dramatic reductions" in nuclear weapons stockpiles and a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

MISSILE DEFENSE

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.

McCain has declared that he "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses." His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty.

Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: "The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes." Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. Obama has not indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

Missile defense site in Europe: McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate, McCain said: "I don't care what [President Vladimir Putin's] objections are to it." He has also described the system as a "hedge against potential threats" from Russia and China.

Obama has been less clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program "to divide 'new Europe' and 'old Europe.'" He also suggested that: "If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should -- but only when the system works."

NORTH KOREA

During the last seven years, it is believed that North Korea reprocessed enough plutonium for about six to ten nuclear weapons. In 2006, North Korea became the ninth country in the world to test a nuclear weapon. In the last 12 months, negotiations among six countries -- the six-party talks including the United States, North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea – produced an agreement where North Korea would disable its facility and provide a full declaration of its nuclear sites and activities. In exchange, the United States would beging the process of removing North Korea from the terrorist list, easing economic sanctions and moving toward normalization of U.S.-North Korea and Japan-North Korea relations.

After President Bush announced on June 26 that North Korea would be taken off the state-sponsored terrorism list in response to North Korea's declaration of its nuclear program, Obama called the move "a step forward." He went on to say: "We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs."

McCain was a bit less effusive, calling the announcement "a modest step forward." He added: "Our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula . . . If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea."

OTHER ISSUES IN BRIEF

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain and Obama both voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama also voted for amendments to condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons. McCain continues to endorse the treaty "as a means of strengthening our relationship with the world's largest democracy, and further involving India in the fight against proliferation."

Summary of Sen. Kyl’s Speech on Nuclear Weapons

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, recently put together a terrific summary of Sen. Jon Kyl’s talk yesterday on nuclear weapons, RRW, a world free of nuclear weapons, and space weapons at National Defense University. Check it out below.

As Kyl had recently spoken on missile defense to another audience, he focused on nuclear weapons in his talk.

Kyl said the U.S. needs a debate on nuclear issues; the other side (the anti-nuclear weapons forces) are dominating the debate. He particularly was critical of the Kissinger-Shultz et al position which is long on ideals but short on facts. Kyl said that their call for a world free of nuclear weapons is just a continuation of the old nuclear freeze movement. He is concerned that the U.S. is moving toward unilateral nuclear disarmament.

On the other hand, he praised the statement by five retired generals (including Shalikasvili) calling for the need to maintain a nuclear first strike.

Kyl complained that the U.S. used to maintain a robust nuclear force, technology, testing, and well-trained nuclear work force, but that that is currently being eroded. The U.S. has let its nuclear infrastructure wither away. It takes a long time to develop nuclear weapons. With the eroding work force, it is like having a brain surgeon who has never worked on brains.

Kyl complained that Congress killed the $90 million request to study the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program last year and cut half a billion from the nuclear weapons complex. It was all because of two Members of Congress, Visclosky and Hobson. This year, in an election season, the Bush Administration requested only $10 million showing how discouraged the Administration is and they are not trying hard any more. They are tired of hitting their heads against the wall.

Clinton and Obama have endorsed a radical nuclear agenda. This is true while so many other countries are building nuclear weapons including Russia, China, UK, France, Iran, North Korea, etc. They are building new nuclear weapons whether or not the U.S. builds nuclear weapons such as the RRW.

What the U.S. needs is an informed debate, not fuzzy notions. It is important to explain the consequences of no nuclear weapons.

Kyl pointed out that the Kissinger-Shultz op-ed calls for ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He said the treaty was rejected because it could not be verified when the Senate considered it and it is still not verifiable (he appears to have recent confirmation of that view).

Congress should make a jurisdictional change; Energy and Water should not deal with nuclear weapons.

The loss of nuclear weapons from the Minot base shows there is an inattention to nuclear weapons, further proof that our nuclear weapons complex is eroding.

Kyl said we should focus on the total Regan legacy; Reagan called for a world without nuclear weapons but also warned against unilateral disarmament or wishing that this kind of step were true.

In response to questions, Kyl called the U.S. a giant tied down by Lilliputians such as non-governmental organizations, international bodies, etc. The U.S. is too constrained.

When asked why the Bush Administration is not fighting harder for RRW, Kyl said the Administration is too tired, disorganized, has no leadership, earlier was too arrogant, and is not getting enough support.

Kyl would not comment on the Iran NIE.

He criticized Hans Blix for saying that nuclear weapons in the hands of the British is the same as in the hands of the North Koreans.

Kyl said that Bush is not in a good position to lead the debate on nuclear weapons; he is not the most credible spokesman on the issue. Instead, McCain should take up nuclear weapons, but only as a side issue, not a major issue.

He called the abandonment of the ABM Treaty in 2001 the seminal achievement of 2001 except that it was overshadowed by the 9/11 attacks (someone in attendance suggested a resolution requiring an annual celebration of the U.S. exiting from the treaty.)

In 2008, Kyl's main hope on missile defense is to get the $10 million approved for the space based test bed. He wants to embed some progress on space. It is a silly idea that we should not weaponize space when there are already so many weapons in space.

Star Wars Turns 25 Years Old, but Effective and Capable Missile Defense Still Elusive

The Center's senior military fellow Gen. Robert Gard and director John Isaacs released today a phenomenal report on America's missile defense program.

The analysis covers Congressional, scientific, governmental, and military support for and opposition to a national missile defense program from Reagan's push in 1983 to the present administration.

The authors conclude that no elements of the ground-based system should be deployed until they are proven effective at accomplishing their mission, and capable of protecting the United States.

Highlights included here, and links found below:

[The National Missile Defense Act of 1999] endorsed missile defense deployment but with important qualifiers. It directs the Department of Defense "to deploy as soon as is technically possible an effective national missile defense system that is capable of defending the territory of the United States against a limited ballistic missile defense attack" [emphasis added].

[snip]

The 1995 National Intelligence Estimate pointed out that any country that can successfully flight test an ICBM, a complex undertaking, will be able to develop numerous countermeasures to penetrate a missile defense system.

[snip]

Yet procurement and deployment of ground-based mid-course interceptors continues. In 2007, 10 interceptors were deployed, bringing the total to 21 at Fort Greely, Alaska, and three at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The intent is to reach 54 interceptors – 44 in the United States and 10 in Poland – by 2013.

[snip]

System intercept tests have not employed realistic decoys, or any decoys at all, in the two most recent tests. Discrimination remains the Achilles' heel of the ground-based mid-course system.

[snip]

It is evident that the ground-based mid-course system does not meet the conditions for deployment specified in the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. It has not demonstrated that it is effective in accomplishing its mission or that it is capable of defending the territory of the United States. Phillip Coyle, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation during the Clinton administration, has called ground-based mid-course "a scarecrow, not a defense," and Richard Garwin has said the system is "totally useless."

According to the Congressional Research Service, more than $120 billion has been invested in missile defense since President Reagan's speech 25 years ago, much of it on the system to protect the United States. Given the fact that delivery of a nuclear weapon against the United States is far more likely by means other than an ICBM, which leaves a return address, the opportunity costs are very high in military terms alone, not to mention other higher priority national security and domestic programs. The further deployment of elements of the ground-based mid-course system should be suspended until research and development can demonstrate that the problem of discrimination can be solved successfully.

Click on each of the following for the full text, PDF, and press release.

John Isaacs: Congress and National Security in 2007

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, recently penned an excellent wrap-up of Congressional action on national security issues in 2007, including nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, non-nuclear strategic weapons, missile defense, North Korea, and Iran. He argues that despite Congress’ failure to end the Iraq War, it was successful in a number of other areas, especially nuclear weapons.

The full article is provided below.

On December 18, as Congress was about to head out of town, the Senate took three last votes on the war in Iraq. The outcome of the votes replicated a host of votes earlier in the year and ran into the same law of mathematics: 60 votes are needed to pass controversial legislation in the Senate, such as requiring U.S. troops to return home from Iraq. Beyond that 60-vote barrier lies the president's veto pen, and a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress is needed to overcome that barrier. There are not 60 votes in the Senate to end the Iraq War, and there is certainly not a two-thirds majority in either the House or the Senate.

This salient congressional failure to end the disastrous Iraq War in 2007, however, masked a series of less visible but nonetheless important triumphs on national security issues, particularly related to nuclear weapons. Congress was able to stop, limit, or reverse some ill-advised Bush administration initiatives—more on that later.

It is true that the war in Iraq continues unabated. It is true that the military budget has skyrocketed, approaching $700 billion in approved funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through passage of the $70 billion "bridge" supplemental. It is true that the missile defense program, the largest single Pentagon weapons program, continues to lead a charmed life and will receive $8.7 billion in the next fiscal year, despite the flawed national missile defense ground-based system that lies at the heart of the program.

Policymaking in Washington in 2007 reflected some old truths. Powerful defense contractor lobbyists and their defenders in Congress continue to protect Cold War-era weapons programs that should be cancelled. Interest groups such as the newly cash-flush Freedom's Watch that back the Iraq War as part of what presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani bellicosely referred to as the "Terrorists' War on Us," a Clash of Civilizations against "Islamofascists," also seek to confront Iran as soon as possible with military force. And Republicans continue to maintain a religious zeal for missile defense, stemming from Ronald Reagan's embrace of the program 25 years ago; however, almost no corporations or interest groups support building new nuclear weapons or expanding the nuclear weapons complex. Even Republicans who salute Bush's military policies are silent, publicly opposed, or active participant s in the rebellion against the administration's nuclear weapons plans.

Nuclear weapons. After entering office in 2001, President George W. Bush sought expanded uses for nuclear weapons through a series of nuclear policy pronouncements and proposals to Congress to fund a new generation of nuclear weapons. First, the administration tried to persuade Congress to fund research into a small, low-yield, and therefore supposedly more "usable" nuclear weapon. Congress refused.

Next, the administration promoted a nuclear bunker buster, formally known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, designed to attack national leaders hiding underground or to target deeply buried bunkers harboring biological or chemical weapons. Congress said "hell, no" and promptly killed the program.

Not giving up on plans for a new nuclear weapon, most recently the Department of Energy proposed building a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), a program designed to develop a nuclear warhead it claimed was safer and more reliable than the existing stockpile. Before leaving town shortly before Christmas, Congress passed a huge Omnibus Appropriations Bill that denied any funds for this latest scheme.

Foes of these new weapons programs pointed out that more than 15 years after the Cold War, the United States still maintains huge numbers of nuclear weapons—albeit many fewer than at the height of the Cold War—with no real mission or purpose. A force designed to face off against a massive Soviet nuclear arsenal has much less raison d'être today.

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN), chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee that originally nixed the funds for RRW, said in a statement after congressional action: "Despite the fact that the Cold War has ended, and we now face different national security threats that include terrorists acquiring nuclear material, the administration has not yet established a revised nuclear defense strategy and stockpile plan to reflect the new realities of the world. To put it simply, funding the RRW right now puts the cart before the horse."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), one of the Senate's leading opponents of the RRW program, added: "The administration has pushed hard over nearly eight years to spend aggressively on new nuclear weapon programs that the nation does not need and which would make the world a more dangerous place. The Reliable Replacement Warhead was just the latest."

Another victory came when Congress refused to fund the administration's plan to build a new facility to produce annually 125 to 200 plutonium "triggers" or pits for nuclear weapons. These plutonium pits are of the cores of modern nuclear warheads, and the plan was a key part of the Department of Energy's plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. However, after a 2006 study by national laboratory scientists, reviewed by independent scientists, concluded that existing pits in current nuclear weapons could last reliably for several more decades than previously estimated, Congress saw little need for a major new "bombplex" plant and zeroed out the work.

Congress bolstered these program cuts with provisions launching two reevaluations of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Congress established a 12-member congressional commission "to look at the strategic posture of the United States in the broadest sense," including both conventional and nuclear. The commission was asked to include a threat assessment, a detailed review of nuclear weapons policy and strategy, and an examination of non-nuclear alternatives to nuclear weapons. The commission's report is due December 1, 2008.

In addition, Congress mandated the secretary of defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years. This report would make recommendations on: the role of nuclear forces in U.S. military strategy; the policy requirements to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear deterrence posture; the composition of the nuclear delivery systems that will be required for implementing U.S. military strategy; and what kind of nuclear weapons complex is needed to support these activities.

Significantly, both studies are designed to guide the next president of the United States as he or she takes office in 2009. Thus, while another year remains in Bush's second term, most of Washington is already looking forward to the next president's new policies beginning in 2009.

Nuclear nonproliferation. There were other positive developments in 2007 in the nuclear realm. In February 2006, the Bush administration unveiled its plans for reprocessing U.S. and foreign nuclear waste as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, reversing a 30-year practice of not reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. As part of this program, the Bush administration planned to build a full-scale commercial reprocessing plant and fast reactor to separate plutonium from the nuclear waste. Congress cut out more than half the funds, appropriating only $179 million, and Congress' last words on the program in the final bill were that the "controversial initiative ... will cost tens of billions of dollars and last for decades, but it continues to raise concerns among scientists and has only weak support from industry."

The Bush administration has generally given short shift to nuclear nonproliferation policies, never giving high priority to important programs that minimize the risk of nuclear terrorism by securing and disposing of vulnerable nuclear weapons in Russia and materials in more than 40 countries that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Congress proved itself more responsible than the Executive Branch, however, and reversed previous attempts to cut funding for such programs. This year, it added $623 million in two bills for core nonproliferation programs. Congress also eliminated bureaucratic restrictions that had long hampered carrying out these vital nonproliferation programs.

One priority of the arms control community is the ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Bush made it clear upon taking office that he had no interest in resurrecting the treaty, which the Senate failed to ratify in 1999. The fact remains, however, that the United States has not conducted a nuclear explosive test for 15 years. While the administration requested funds in earlier years to speed up an eventual resumption of nuclear weapons testing (which Congress wisely denied), it did not even try in 2007.

Congress took on the test-ban issue in two ways. First, while the administration requested only $18 million for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, the international organization that monitors worldwide for any secret tests, even as the United States fell into arrears in its dues, Congress increased that amount by one-third to $24 million. Second, a compromise of sorts came on language proposed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) endorsing eventual ratification of the CTBT. Conservatives, led by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who was recently elevated to the number two position in the Senate Republican hierarchy, put together a letter signed by 37 senators objecting to Levin's language. With neither side willing to risk a Senate floor fight over the provision, it was quietly dropped.

Non-nuclear strategic weapons. Congress also rejected a Pentagon request to put conventional warheads on Trident nuclear-powered submarines. These Trident submarines are a cornerstone of the mighty U.S. nuclear deterrent capacity. The Pentagon, looking for a way to strike targets quickly across the globe, proposed replacing some nuclear warheads on Trident submarines with conventional warheads that could be launched quickly at far-off targets. Congress demurred, concerned about whether or not other nations could reliably tell whether a missile flying overhead contained a nuclear or a conventional warhead. While recognizing the need for the United States to have a capacity to strike quickly with a conventional warhead, the Defense Authorization conferees stated: "The conferees remain concerned about prompt global strike concepts that would employ a mixed loading of nuclear and non-nuclear system s and believe that [the Department of Defense] should carefully address these ambiguity concerns."

Missile defense. While Congress continues to pour huge amounts of money into missile defense programs, it did establish limits on the administration's proposed missile defense system in Europe that is supposed to protect against Iranian nuclear missiles. The United States plans to place new interceptor missiles in Poland, along with tracking radar in the Czech Republic. This plan has already stirred up fierce domestic opposition in Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Congress stepped into the controversy by barring any spending on "procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of equipment for, or deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe" until Poland and the Czech Republic give final approval and until the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation submits a report certifying that the proposed interceptor "has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner." These conditions may mean that any deployment decision is delayed until the next U.S. president takes office.

North Korea. Another area of progress on national security is the effort to stop North Korea's nuclear program. The Bush administration—reversing course after six years—devoted new energy this year to negotiations with the secretive North Korean regime as part of the Six-Party Talks. These negotiations made significant progress after the departure of John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and previous undersecretary of state for arms control, who, no longer in government, has been liberated to criticize his former colleagues from a comfy perch at the American Enterprise Institute. Progress in the talks has been followed by steps forward on the ground, and North Korea has taken concrete steps to shutter its nuclear facilities.

Hawks in Congress could have objected to the talks with North Korea, one of the members of the "axis of evil," and could have tried to withhold funds to implement the agreement. But the Omnibus Appropriations Bill approved $53 million for energy assistance to the Pyongyang regime and authorized another $10 million for dismantlement work. The final bill stated: "The Committee on Appropriations strongly supports ... disablement of North Korea's nuclear weapons arsenal and production capability."

Iran. The final area of mixed progress relates to Iran. Congress spent 2007 passing resolutions condemning Iran and its Revolutionary Guard, adopting greater economic sanctions, advocating a missile defense site in Europe to protect against Iranian missiles, and appropriating funds for an ineffectual and controversial program to "promote democracy" in Iran that has been thoroughly rejected by its intended beneficiaries.

But the trend toward confrontation and war was abruptly halted in early December when the intelligence community disseminated a new National Intelligence Estimate that found Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure. The estimate further concluded: "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." Ironically, Congress had been insisting since October 2006 that the Bush administration update its intelligence estimate of Iran's nuclear programs.

In sum, a year overshadowed by war in Iraq produced a number of significant victories for those focused on nuclear weapons activities. It is very likely that the major priority of the arms control community in 2008 will be to similarly hold the line against the Bush administration's nuclear weapons proposals, and then to push for wholesale change by the new president who takes office on January 20, 2009.

John Isaacs: Congress and Iran: The New Iraq?

Executive Director of the Center, John Isaacs, published a new article last week on the simmering situation in Congress concerning Iran. He sees last month as a turning point in the administration's PR offensive laying the groundwork for a preventive U.S. attack against Iran.

The drumbeat of a possible march to war with Iran reached a new intensity in recent weeks. Although the campaign is led by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, cheerleaders in Congress and the conservative community—with no small assistance from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his inflammatory rhetoric—are aiding and abetting.

While the Iraq War continues into its fifth year as a debilitating quagmire, with Democrats lacking the votes to bring U.S. soldiers home, the war debate has shifted to Iran. Congressional hardliners offer amendments to bills to show how tough they are toward Ahmadinejad, and few Democrats are willing to vote "no."

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates are eagerly trying to outhawk each other with statements regarding Iran. The Democratic candidates have gotten into the act too, although they are competing to show who is most open to a diplomatic solution, rather than war.

If U.S. warplanes fly toward Iran next year, October 2007 may be remembered as the month that the Bush administration began its final push to prepare the American public for a new conflagration in the Middle East. To many, it looked like the 2002 run-up to the attack against Iraq. As Yogi Berra said, it's "déjà vu all over again."

Click here for the complete article.

Dispute Over Nuclear Weapons Underscores Clinton and Obama’s Differences

Getting a few more miles out of the story, the Center recently put out an interesting press release on the topic, included below.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s recent dispute over the use of nuclear weapons highlights serious differences between their positions on threatening to use or employing the most destructive weapons ever developed, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said today.

Responding to a question about his willingness to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and bin Laden, Sen. Obama said, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he added.

Sen. Clinton objected to Obama’s pledge, stating that "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

Leonor Tomero, Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center, commented: “The United States should not recklessly threaten to use nuclear weapons, particularly against states that do not have these weapons.”

John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center, cautioned: “For more than 60 years, there has been a bright line drawn against dropping atomic bombs that would kill untold tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.”

As part of the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whereby 182 countries have given up the right to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, the United States - along with France, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia - promised never to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are members of the NPT, except if attacked by a non-nuclear state that is allied with a state possessing nuclear weapons. Pledged in 1995, these so-called “negative security assurances” were reiterated at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Review Conference.

“Threatening to use nuclear weapons to fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan and in Afghanistan is unnecessary and irresponsible,” Tomero added. “Sen. Obama’s nuanced position reflects a responsible understanding of the logic of deterrence. There is currently no justification for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.”

NOTE: The Center does not endorse or fundraise for presidential candidates and has no ties to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns.

John Isaacs: "Democrats Controlling Congress: A Six-Month Assessment"

The Center's Executive Director, John Isaacs, wrote an article published today in Right Web, in which he provides a comprehensive look at how the Democrats have fared on national security issues six months after taking the helm in Congress.

While the article breaks down progress (or lack thereof) on a slew of national security issues, ranging from Iraq and Iran to National Missile Defense, Isaacs argues that Democrats have had the most success on the nuclear weapons front:

While working for a quick end to the Iraq War has consumed a great deal of Democrats' time, the greatest early national security successes came on nuclear weapons issues, particularly in the House.

Isaacs provides a detailed look at where we stand today on a range of nuclear weapons projects. Below is an abbreviated laundry list of programs he covers:

NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS (RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD): Funding Successfully Cut, Zeroed Out in House

In making its case, the administration ran into a formidable buzz saw: Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN) and former chair of the same subcommittee Rep. David Hobson (R-OH). In previous years, the duo had helped to kill the Reliable Replacement Warhead's predecessor, the nuclear "bunker buster" (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator).

In hearings this year, the two representatives were scathing in their criticism of the Department of Energy's handling of nuclear programs.

The "scathing" criticism Isaacs refers to has led to major cuts in Congress for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, including the House Appropriations Committee having zeroed out funding for RRW. You can get my take on Senate and House funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program here.

PLUTONIUM PITS, NONPROLIFERATION: Success in Senate, Bigger Success in House

The House took a number of other positive steps on nuclear weapons issues. It cut all $24.9 million for a new plant to build plutonium pits and added almost $900 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs, bringing the total to $2 billion...

[snip]

While the Senate Appropriations Committee also eliminated the plutonium pit production money and added $200 million for nonproliferation programs, it cut the funding request for the plutonium reprocessing program from $405 million to $243 million.

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: Positive Progress, but Still Up in the Air

There has also been a tussle over the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an agreement signed by President Bill Clinton and rejected by the Senate in 1999. In a bid to rebuild support for the treaty and prepare for its eventual reconsideration, the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted a non-binding provision in its bill that said simply: "The Senate should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty."

[snip]

Senator Kyl made it clear that he was less than pleased by the provision. In his July 10 speech, he strongly objected to the CTBT provision: " Tucked away near the end of this bill, very much in the fine print, is an unprecedented attempt to preordain the ratification of a treaty—a treaty already overwhelmingly rejected by this body—the CTBT. ... This sense of the Senate should be called just what it is—a sham."

NUCLEAR STRATEGY DEBATE: Democrats Succeed in Starting the Debate

There is one provision in several of the bills that is likely to survive: a requirement that the United States conduct a new assessment of its nuclear weapons policy to reflect changed circumstances in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 world.

IRAN AND MISSILE DEFENSE: Mixed Results

News on Iran and missile defense has been mixed. There are many who fear that Bush, while at a complete loss on coping with the Iraq quagmire, will launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office. In part to respond to U.S. concerns about Iran, a U.S. proposal to build a third National Missile Defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic to guard against an Iranian attack has kicked up a furor in Europe. The House cut $160 million from the administration's $310 million request for the third site while the Senate Armed Services Committee cut $85 million. In both cases, Congress recommended a go-slow approach to the third site.

[snip]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), while declining to reinsert the money, successfully offered a sense of the Senate amendment stating that U.S. policy should be "to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, in conjunction with its allies and other nations whenever possible, an effective defense against the threat from Iran." After the amendment was softened from an earlier draft presented to the Senate, it was approved overwhelmingly, 90-5. Senators apparently did not want to appear "soft" on the Iranian threat.