John Isaacs: An Early Look Ahead: McCain, Clinton and Obama on National Security Issues

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, recently wrote a terrific piece on what to expect from McCain, Clinton, and Obama in terms of national security issues.

Key sections are provided below.

Policy toward Iran

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 early February, 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.” 10 He also rejects “unconditional dialogues” with Iran. 11

Obama and Clinton have delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. Obama has promised to open a dialogue with Iran without preconditions to attempt to work out a solution. 12 However, he has called Iran “a threat to all of us” and suggested in March 2007 that the military option should remain on the table. 13 At the same time, he has said that it “would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran” and condemned the administration’s “saber-rattling” on Iran. 14

Clinton has pledged to reach out immediately to Iran, saying, “you don’t make peace with your friends. You have got to deal with … people whose interests diverge from yours.” 15 At the same time, she has indicated that she remains open to all options, including military ones. 16 Clinton has also declared: “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” 17 She voted for a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. 18 Obama missed that vote but 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. 19

Nuclear Weapons

In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a “world free of nuclear weapons.” 20 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.” 21 While Clinton said that she supported the goal of a nuclear-free world, she was less specific in what she would do if elected: “As president, I will work to implement the sensible near-term steps” to achieve the objective. McCain has made no known statement on the plan from Kissinger et al., but he has promised to reduce nuclear weapons if elected. 22

New Nuclear Weapons

The Bush administration has forwarded 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. 23 Clinton voted against these programs all four times. She was clear in response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire: “The Bush administration has dangerously put the cart before the horse, planning to rush ahead with new nuclear weapons without any considered assessment of what we need these weapons for or what the impact of building them would be on our effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.” 24 Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, also opposed the new weapons. He was less categorical to the council’s queries, responding that he did not support "a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead]." 25

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

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.” 26 There is little evidence that McCain will bring the treaty before the Senate; instead, he has written about strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 27 Although neither Clinton nor Obama were in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, both have promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of their first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty. 28

National 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.” 29 His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. 30 In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty. 31

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.” 32 Clinton’s position has been more ambiguous. Of three key votes in 2004, she voted in effect for missile defense once and against it twice. However, she criticized President Bush’s decision in 2001 to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and both she and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. 33 She also has criticized the Bush administration of “focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology.” 34 Neither Clinton nor Obama has 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." 35 Obama has not been 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.’” 36 It is also unclear what the Clinton policy would be.

Other Issues in Brief

[snip]

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain, Obama and Clinton all voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama and Clinton 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. 38

[snip]

North Korea: Obama has called for “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy” with North Korea; Clinton for “direct contact, engagement” with Pyongyang. 40 McCain argues: “It is unclear today whether North Korea is truly committed to verifiable denuclearization.” 41

Nuclear nonproliferation: Clinton and Obama have committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office. 42 McCain has endorsed strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency and putting the burden of proof on suspected violators of the NPT. 43

Disarmament Efforts Get a Boost in Norway

A group of high-level disarmament experts gathered this week in Oslo, Norway for an international conference hosted by the Norwegian government. Participants for the conference, entitled, "Achieving a World Free of Nuclear Weapons," included former Secretary of State George Shultz and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn.

Schultz and Nunn are two authors of the four-member team, also including former Defense Secretary William Perry and former secretary of State Henry Kissinger, that published articles in the Wall Street Journal last month and in January 2007, calling for a "world free of nuclear weapons."

In an interview with the Arms Control Association, Nunn described moving toward the abolition of nuclear weapons as "climbing a mountain, the top of the mountain being zero nuclear weapons. We might not get there in my lifetime, but we need to be heading up the mountain, not down the mountain." With that broad goal in mind, the authors and the members of this week's conference offered practical steps to take along the way and prevent the "nuclear nightmare" toward which Nunn believes we are headed.

Conference participant Jeff Lewis of the New America Foundation (known in the blogosphere through Arms Control Wonk) commented on the steps discussed.

The end point seems really quite unachievable and the challenges of getting there seem very daunting, but I haven't heard any ridiculous ideas today. I've heard sensible pathways to elimination that one has to consider very carefully even if only to dismiss them. That's very impressive. I think that's a very different debate than we've had the past 20 years.

One of those actions is what Nunn sees as the best single step for U.S. and Russian security: extending warning times on nuclear weapons, thousands of which currently sit on hair trigger alert, with the capability to launch in minutes. "If everyone had the posture where they could not shoot for a week...that would make nuclear weapons less relevant, and the discussion about how many you need takes on a different flavor," he told ACA.

Other steps discussed at the conference, according to Greg Webb, included:

• deeper reductions in the massive nuclear stockpiles in Russia and the United States (the United States nuclear arsenal includes almost 10,000 warheads, and Russia's, approximately 15,000);
• speeding up efforts to secure loose nukes;
  
• and removing and eventually dismantling forward-deployed nuclear weapons.

The process will certainly not be easy, and no one expects it to be, especially in light of tense U.S.-Russian relations. But this week's conference adds credibility to a disarmament process re-invigorated by the earlier letters of Nunn, Schultz, Kissinger, and Perry.

In Lewis's words, "Serious people, who are careful what they say in public so they don't damage their reputation... gathered at a very expensive hotel to hold a very serious discussion about eliminating nuclear weapons." That's more than a step in the right direction.

Congressional Schedule for DoD and DoE Bills

Provided below is an updated schedule of Congressional action on key Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DoE) bills, as prepared by David Culp of FCNL.

National Security Legislative Wrap-up

Congress is back from recess this week. The Senate is scheduled to vote on February 26 on whether to invoke cloture or shut off debate on two Iraq-related bills introduced by Sens. Feingold (D-WI), Reid (D-NV) and Menendez (D-NJ). The first measure would cut funding for U.S. troops 120 days after enactment of the measure except for specified purposes, including bringing the troops home. The second measure requires an Administration report to Congress on its strategy for combating al Qaeda.

House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D-PA) indicated that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee intends to complete work on the defense portion of the over $100 billion fiscal year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not clear when the full Appropriations Committee or the House will take up the bill; it may not be until mid-to-late spring. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) has indicated he does not plan to take up the bill until April at the earliest. The measure is expected to be the vehicle for new fights over withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and perhaps many other issues.

North Korea Nutshell: Bob Woodruff at Yongbyon

Although Woodruff has been to North Korea before, this time he was allowed into the plant at Yongbyon and got to see and videotape the process of disablement himself. As I still remain skeptical about the possible overall outcome of the negotiations, I can't help but be amazed about the contrast of where we are now when compared to just a few years ago. An American journalist in the heart of the North Korean nuclear complex. I had to see it to believe it. Make sure to catch the stylish yellow shoes everyone is wearing inside the plant.

This visit is a part of a week-long series of reports by Woodruff that will culminate tomorrow when the New York Philharmonic will perform inside Pyongyang. The performance will be simulcast live, if you live in New York. Otherwise, you can catch it nationwide Thursday on PBS. Secretary of State Rice will be in Seoul on the 25th for the inauguration of President Lee Myung-bak. Some sources have claimed that Rice will take this opportunity to make a surprise visit to Pyongyang. My personal opinion is that she would not do so unless she was able to present a breakthrough in the negotiations while she was there. She would not likely give Kim Jong-Il that kind of diplomatic victory without getting something serious in return. We'll just have to wait and see.

Experts Outline "Ten First Steps" to Reduce U.S. Nuclear Arsneal

Earlier this month, analysts from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and independent nuclear weapons experts released a report, Toward True Security, which argues that the United States and the other original nuclear powers “must drastically reduce the role that nuclear weapons play in their security policies.”

According to the report, the United States faces three principal nuclear dangers: 1) a Russian accidental or unauthorized attack; 2) the spread of nuclear weapons to more nations, particularly unstable states; and 3) the acquisition of nuclear materials and technology by terrorists.

U.S. nuclear weapons policy fails to adequately address these dangers (in fact, it sometimes even exacerbates them). To that end, the report outlines ten unilateral steps the next president should take to begin to change U.S. nuclear policy. Not only would implementation of these steps enhance U.S. national security, but it would also create the necessary possibility conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons.

In lieu of merely summarizing the “ten first steps,” I’d like to address two issues raised by the report, one general, one specific.

The first issue pertains to whether the ten first steps can be helpful in reducing and (ultimately eliminating) the nuclear arsenals of the four states that lie outside the nuclear nonproliferation regime: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Richard Garwin and Frank N. von Hippel, two authors of Toward True Security, tackled this question at the unveiling of the report on February 13.

Though mindful of the fact that it will always be difficult to induce “outliers” to give up their arsenals so long as they feel that their national security interests require them to possess nuclear weapons to deter more powerful states, Garwin and von Hippel noted that U.S. adoption of the ten first steps would allow for the development of a much more robust nonproliferation regime. The idea here is that a commitment by Washington to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in its defense posture would augment the legal and moral legitimacy of U.S. nonproliferation policies and give non-nuclear NPT signatories a far greater incentive to join the United States in its efforts to combat the arsenals of outliers.

The second issue relates to the 9th step in the report: Halt the further deployment of the Ground-Based Missile Defense system, and drop any plans for space-based missile defense. Proponents of a U.S. missile defense system argue that such a system is necessary given the ballistic missile threats from Russia and China on the one hand, and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea on the other.

There are a number of responses to this line of argument. First, it is not at all clear that North Korea’s Taepo Dong 2 ballistic missiles are capable of targeting the United States or Europe.

Second, a U.S. missile defense system based in Alaska or Eastern Europe would be powerless to intercept an Iranian attack against American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Third, as Garwin and von Hippel are keen to point out, a U.S. missile defense system, no matter how advanced, would not be invulnerable to a potential Russian or Chinese attack. Similarly, any nation capable of developing medium- or long-range nuclear missiles would also be capable of devising effective countermeasures against a missile defense system.

In short, China and Russia would respond to a viable U.S. missile defense system by doing everything in their power to maintain their nuclear deterrent.

Needless to say, the last thing the world needs right now is another nuclear arms race that would poison great power relations, increase the risks of a nuclear accident, make it easier for terrorists to steal nuclear material, and further undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Nukes Invisible in Dem Debate

Last night's Democratic debate in Austin, Texas reflected the changes in the public's primary election concerns over recent months. Iraq and other foreign policy issues largely took a back seat to the economy, health care, and immigration. The action also included recent political but not policy-related headlines from the campaigns - accusations during what Obama called the election's "silly season".

Overall, while the candidates' tried to highlight the nuances of their positions, the debate reflected the overall similarities of their policy stances. Unlike other recent debates, however, that took at least a brief look at nuclear issues, nukes didn't make it into the Austin debate once. Relative to other issues examined by Nukes of Hazard, only a few comments were made.

Fidel Castro's recent resignation announcement in Cuba provided a launching point for the candidates to highlight their differences in regard to diplomatic interaction with nations including Iran and North Korea.

Obama reiterated his commitment to presidential negotiations with these foreign leaders.

I do think it is important, precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations, that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

[snip]

If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time, and I think that it's important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.

[snip]

I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies...In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.

Clinton asserted her caution toward high-level direct negotiations, focusing instead on mid-level talks.

I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement, where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest.

There has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations, and it should be part of a process. But I don't think it should be offered in the beginning because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

On Iraq and terrorism, Obama highlighted again his consistent position against the Iraq war.

What I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation - whether or not to go to war in Iraq - I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

Given that the debates don't appear to be the place to find details on the candidates' positions on nuclear issues, you can check out these resources:

• A candidate questionnaire from the Center's sister organization, Council for a Livable World.
• Eyes on the Prize, a regularly-updated resources from the Friend's Committee on National Legislation.
• The Council on Foreign Relations' Issue Trackers.

Taking "The Shot"

Following up on Max's excellent post about the strategic logic of what has been dubbed by the Navy as “The Shot,” I thought I would provide an in-depth look at exactly why this is such a bad policy decision.

1. The Reasoning Given

During the briefing that described the necessity of taking “The Shot,” Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright both stated that the reason that this falling space debris was different from previous debris was the possibility that a 1,000 pound tank of hydrazine may fall to the Earth and spray it contents over 200 yards. Gen. Cartwright described the effects of hydrazine as:

In a worst-case scenario for the hydrazine, it's similar to chlorine or to ammonia in that when you inhale it, it affects your tissues in your lungs. You know it's -- it has the burning sensation. If you stay very close to it and inhale a lot of it, it could in fact be deadly. But for the most part here, we're talking an area, say, roughly the size of two football fields that the hydrazine could be dispersed over, and you would at least incur something that would make you go to the doctor.

A quick check of the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) essentially confirms this assessment. It states that, “Breathing hydrazines for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors, or seizures.” Generally, it seems that this stuff could burn if it got into your lungs, but only would be deadly if you ignored that burning and continued to breathe it in for a long period of time. Even the official Health Advisory issued by the Center for Disease control said that "The risk of health effects related to the satellite is considered to be low."

But what are the chances that this tank will even fall in a populated area? Discovery quotes some numbers that say that the chance a person will be hit by space debris is less than one in one trillion. Given that three-fourths of Earth's surface is water and of the one-fourth that is land, only 1.5% of that can be considered populated urban centers, the likelihood that this satellite will land where it will have an effect on humans is pretty minute. Dr. Lewis at Armscontrolwonk.com asked a colleague of his to do a quick calculation of the risk assessment and he found that the hydrazine gas has a 2 out of a thousand chance to crash in a area that would affect 3 people, in a worst case scenario.

Taking both of these factors together, this means that the Bush Administration determined that because there is a fairly infinitesimal chance that a satellite will crash in an area where there is a concentration of people, and then possibly leak a chemical that might cause irritation to people within a couple hundred yards, they need to spend $40-60 million to shoot 3 missiles at this satellite and possibly break it apart or miss it, instead of just tracking where the satellite will fall and then contacting those who are likely to be in the crash zone hours beforehand. This seems to be a pretty flimsy justification for a decision that has numerous negative consequences.

2. The Consequences

In January of 2007, the Chinese conducted a test of an anti-satellite missile and were soundly criticized by the world community. Many believed that it would start a dangerous new arms race in space. The spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, stated that the Chinese test was inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that exists in the development of space technology.

Less than a year later, the U.S. has put itself on a course to conduct a very similar test and likely faces even more serious international consequences. Both China and Russia have come out against the U.S. decision and state that the U.S. has simply come up with a flimsy excuse in order to conduct an anti-satellite missile test. What makes matters worse is that these countries also recently submitted a new draft for a treaty against space weapons to the UN Conference on Disarmament. Whether the U.S. government means to or not, it will be thumbing its nose at those two countries by making the decision to conduct this test so soon after the renewing of the treaty efforts.

The diplomatic consequences for the U.S. shooting down this satellite will not just stop with statements of condemnation. No less than three critical ongoing foreign policy crises could be affected by the worsening of relations between these three world powers. Both the 6-Party talks for denuclearizing North Korea and the United Nations Security Council work towards a diplomatic solution with Iran, involve intimate consultations and compromise between China, the U.S. and Russia. More recently, these countries have come to loggerheads over recognizing the independence of Kosovo which seems to be quickly evolving into a referendum on East-West relations. Rarely do these governments agree on exactly the way forward in any of these issues, and “The Shot” just adds to the list of issues of tension that seems to get longer each month.

On the technical side, there seems to be a host of other issues. The first of such issues is the fact that this launching sets a standard by which other countries can conduct anti-satellite tests. One of the major reasons China was condemned so vehemently is that their test lacked any notification of other nations and resulted in a significant amount of space debris sent into higher orbits that could be a danger to other objects in orbit. The U.S. has notified other nations of its intentions and has modeled the test to minimize the possibility of dangerous debris. Yet, if other nations wished to conduct anti-satellite missile tests in the future, they would now likely simply include a human safety justification. By choosing to shoot down this satellite, the U.S. leaves itself in a weakened position to argue against other countries more dangerous military tests.

The second issue, and one that could be far more quickly damaging to national security, would be that the United States has put itself in a place where it must succeed or face huge embarrassment and loss of military credibility. Many experts have stated that even with three chances at hitting the satellite, the missile still have a reasonable chance of at least not fully accomplishing the mission. As pointed out in Max’s post below, the U.S. gains very little even if this test is a success. However, were this mission to fail, the U.S. is now in a position where its most reliable missile defense technology, the Navy’s Aegis system, is shown to come up wanting.

3. Other Possible Reasoning

This situation seems to point to additional factors that must be influencing the Bush Administration to make this decision. It just does not seem logical to move forward with this, given the low probability of serious danger and far higher likelihood for consequences. So what else could be influencing the Bush Administration to go ahead with this mission?

The most obvious answer seems to be that they want to promote missile defense. Ever since the Bush Administration came into power and chose to abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia, they have been on a path that promotes this capability despite the consequences. It hasn’t mattered whether project costs continued to skyrocket with only minimal results, or if European and Russian governments protest against proposed installation sites. The Bush Administration has continually discounted its critics and gone forward with promoting this program. In fact, the fiscal year 2009 budget request includes an unprecedented $12.3 billion in funding for missile defense related programs despite the fact that they have yet to been able to field a system that would protect the U.S. from a missile strike with any high rate of success.

This anti-satellite mission is a perfect cover for creating another justification for continuing this program. Congressional appropriators will now have solid evidence to point to that shows that missile defense not only works, but has the capacity to be adapted to unexpected crises that may arise. For missile defense advocates, this broken satellite was an opportunity that was just too good to pass up.