Presidential Candidates Respond to Key Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation Questions

The Center's sister organization, Council for a Livable World, today released responses to seven critical questions on national security issues that were posed to all declared presidential candidates from both parties.

Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson responded to the Council’s questionnaire. Their responses exhibited noteworthy unity while differing on some important details.

Six of the seven questions were on nuclear weapons or nonproliferation issues. A summary and analysis for those questions is provided below. The full text of the candidates' responses is available here.

Question #1 - Reducing Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for moving toward a "world free of nuclear weapons" and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. Do you support or oppose their proposal?

All of the candidates called for moving toward a "world free of nuclear weapons" and reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles, but Biden and Clinton qualified their responses. Biden noted the difficulty of implementing several of the recommendations and Clinton committed only to working "to implement the sensible near-term steps" described by Kissinger, Shultz, Nunn, and Perry.

Question #2 - New Nuclear Weapons
Do you support or oppose researching, building, and possibly testing a new generation of nuclear weapons, including the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead?

Most candidates expressed support for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons and the need to de-emphasize the value of these weapons.

Obama was less clear than the other candidates on opposing the Bush administration's plan to build a new generation of nuclear warheads, saying he did not support "a premature decision to produce the RRW." Other candidates were more clear-cut.

Biden commented that "the RRW concept has been hijacked" and that the Department of Energy was using it "as an excuse for maintaining a wastefully large nuclear weapons establishment." Richardson remarked that to see a nuclear weapon "is to be astounded that millions of deaths can be compressed into such a tiny package. To know intimately our nuclear arsenal is to know intimately how our species could destroy itself."

Question #3 - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Would you make a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a priority of your first term in office?

The candidates voiced unanimous support for making a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a priority in their first-term in the White House. Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson expressed their support for the test ban treaty in terms of restoring U.S. leadership in the world.

Biden pointed out that "securing 67 votes in the Senate won't be easy" and also expressed a desire to "find a means of assuring that any undetectable cheating will not pose a military threat to the U.S." In addition to leading a bipartisan effort to ratify the test ban treaty, Clinton committed herself to "a continued moratorium on nuclear weapons testing" if ratification could not be secured. Obama suggested that until it ratifies the treaty, the least the U.S. can do is fully pay its contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).

Question #5 - Space Weapons
Do you support or oppose a multilateral international ban on placing weapons in space?

The candidates were the most divided on the issue of weapons in space. Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson endorsed a multilateral international ban on space weapons with no qualifiers.

Clinton supported the multilateral international ban but committed herself only to constraining testing and deployment of weapons in space "as much as possible, while continuing to protect our satellites from any threats that remain."

Obama said a treaty increasing space security, while "a good idea," would "take a long time to negotiate" and therefore suggested a "simpler and quicker" alternative: a "Code of Conduct for responsible space-faring nations."

Biden was the only candidate to answer "It Depends," explaining that he opposed space weapons "designed to cause damage on the ground" and supported "a carefully crafted ban on destroying or disabling another country's satellite," but remained wary of any treaty that aimed to "ban space stations or require international inspection of space payloads."

Question #6 - Nuclear Non-Proliferation Efforts
Do you support or oppose proposals for a major expansion and acceleration of nuclear non-proliferation efforts, including the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, designed to ensure that weapons of mass destruction and their essential ingredients around the world are secured and accounted for as rapidly as possible?

All of the candidates demonstrated that they understood progress on threat reduction has been slow and that nuclear terrorism is one of gravest threats to U.S. security. Since more than half the work to secure vulnerable nuclear weapons material remains to be done, all expressed a sense of urgency in expanding the funding and scope of Nunn-Lugar and related programs and accelerating nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Both Clinton and Obama committed to the goal of entirely securing all nuclear material in vulnerable sites within four years. Clinton focused her response on the threat of nuclear terrorism, calling for the creation of a Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism, an idea she first introduced in the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act earlier this year. Obama included "negotiating a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material" as an element of his four-year goal.

Obama and Richardson both mentioned the need to deal with Russia, and Obama highlighted the delays and disputes that have hindered progress on securing Russian nuclear weapons and material.

Biden voiced support for his previously articulated "nuclear forensics" initiative that would "determine the origin of nuclear materials so that we can bring deterrence into the 21st century." He also drew attention to the "low-end of proliferation: buy backs of handguns and automatic weapons in troubled countries."

Edwards suggested convening a summit of leading nations to form a new Global Nuclear Compact, which would aim to provide "access to fuel for peaceful nuclear programs" while limiting the capabilities of states to make such materials and providing for "strict monitoring to ensure that materials are not being diverted."

Richardson noted his relevant experience as Secretary of Energy and said that "Pakistan's weapons are the most likely to fall into the wrong hands," calling for cooperation with Pakistan "to ensure that, in the event of a coup, Jihadists would not be able to use the Pakistani nuclear arsenal."

Question #7 - Direct Negotiations with Iran and North Korea
Do you support or oppose direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea that would include incentives for Iran not to build nuclear weapons and North Korea to eliminate verifiably its nuclear weapons program?

The candidates all endorsed negotiations with Iran and North Korea and demonstrated an awareness of the value and importance of diplomacy and international engagement in solving some of the toughest nuclear non-proliferation problems. Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all made clear that negotiations are required to achieve a successful outcome and are a necessary part of leadership, not some sort of capitulation or concession.

Biden said that direct talks "could add to, not take away from" the Six-Party talks with North Korea and EU-3 talks with Iran.

Clinton referred to her engagement strategy as "robust diplomacy" and contrasted it with the "cowboy diplomacy of the Bush-Cheney administration."

Edwards called for cooperating "with other great powers to isolate Iran and to offer Iran economic incentives." On North Korea, Edwards said that "We must engage the country directly, through the Six Party framework, placing economic and political incentives on the table."

Obama was the only candidate to explicitly state that he "will not take the military option off the table" in confronting these threats, but he reiterated that "our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy."

Richardson mentioned that "no nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons," but rather that "many nations have been convinced to renounce them." He explained that "meaningful sanctions accompanied by positive incentives and security guarantees" were the right approach. Richardson also cited his personal experience in negotiating with troublesome regimes, adding that "When the North Koreans want to re-engage the U.S., they call me, because they trust me."

Sen. Lugar Praises Nunn-Lugar on Albania; Next Stop North Korea?

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) put out a celebratory op-ed on Saturday praising his namesake Nunn-Lugar program for successfully destroying Albania’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Lugar writes, “In a remote corner of Southern Europe, the United States and Albania recently scored a quiet but important victory in the battle against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This success points the way toward helping resolve some of the greatest threats the world faces from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.”

While his paean may overstate the significance of the elimination of Albania’s 16 tons of chemical weapons agents, Lugar is nevertheless correct that it is important victory, even if it is a largely symbolic one. Albania did, after all, earn the title of first nation to completely destroy all of its chemical weapons under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

But 16 tons is still a drop in the global bucket, considering that only approximately 24,000 tons of the over 74,000 tons of declared chemical agents have been destroyed. Also significant is that several countries not party to the CWC, notably Syria and North Korea, are suspected of possessing chemical weapons, while other countries that are party to the Convention, such as Sudan and China, are suspected of not fully disclosing their stockpiles.

That is not to say, of course, there that has not been progress. There has. All of the declared chemical weapons production facilities have been “inactivated,” with 61 of the 65 declared facilities having been either destroyed or converted for peaceful purposes. And over 30% of the 8.6 million chemical munitions and containers covered by the Convention have been verifiably destroyed, although this still falls far short of the 100% goal set for in 2007.

As Lugar points out, the destruction of Albania’s chemical weapons arsenal “was an important first test of the Nunn-Lugar program outside the former Soviet Union, proving we can work with other governments in new environments. And it shows the value of expanding the Nunn-Lugar program so the United States can respond to nonproliferation opportunities wherever they may appear.” And although the program’s primary focus is still on Russia, Lugar writes, “the Albanian success shows we can and must be prepared to address similar risks in the Middle East, Asia and anyplace else where supplies of weapons of mass destruction may be.”

But of particular note is that Lugar concludes by suggesting that recent progress in the negotiations with North Korea could mean that that country too could eventually be aided by the Nunn-Lugar program in dismantling its weapons of mass destruction programs. Considering that North Korea is one of only seven countries that hasn’t even signed the CWC, this could be a tall order, but one that is nevertheless crucial for global security interests.

Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Highlights From House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY 08 Defense Appropriations Bill

The Center’s Travis Sharp released his Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Highlights From House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222) today. It includes a more thorough scrubbing of numbers from an earlier post, expands on a follow-up post, and also includes additional fresh details on the bill.

The House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3222) on July 25. The bill includes $459.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $3.5 billion below the Bush Administration’s request of $463.1 billion and $39.7 billion above FY 2007 levels (excluding supplemental war funding). H.R. 3222 does NOT fund the Administration’s request of $141.7 billion for FY 2008 military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides inserting 1,791 individual member earmarks, the House Appropriations Committee took noteworthy action on Conventional Trident Modification, Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar), Missile Defense, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Space Programs, and Strategic Nuclear Forces and Delivery Systems.

The full House is expected to consider the Defense Appropriations bill on Friday, August 3. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet scheduled action on the bill.

CONVENTIONAL TRIDENT MODIFICATION (CTM)

Zeroes out the Navy’s combined procurement and research and development request of $175 million, but provides $100 million in defense-wide research and development funding for prompt global strike technologies such as “propulsion and guidance systems, mission planning, re-entry vehicle design, modeling and simulation efforts, and launch system infrastructure.” DoD must also submit a report on CTM initiatives by January 31, 2008. (pp. 216, 379)

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION (NUNN-LUGAR)

Provides $398 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction nonproliferation program in DoD’s operation and maintenance funding, $50 million above the request and $26 million above FY 2007 funding levels. (pp. 74, 156-58)

Of this $398 million, $172 million goes to Russia ($34 million above request), $201 million goes to other states of the former Soviet Union ($10 million above request), $19 million goes to assessments and administrative costs (meets request), and $7 million goes to new initiatives (not requested). (pp. 156-58)

Of the $172 million in funding for Russia, $93 million is for strategic offensive arms elimination ($15 million above request, will go to eliminating two Delta III submarines and associated SS-N-18 missiles), $40 million is for nuclear weapons storage security ($17 million above request, will go to accelerating nuclear warhead security work pursuant to the Bratislava agreement), $38 million is for nuclear weapons transportation security (meets request), and $1 million is for chemical weapons destruction (not requested, will go to completing the Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction project). (pp. 156-58)

Of the $201 million in funding for other states of the former Soviet Union, $145 million is for biological threat reduction (meets request), $48 million is for weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention ($10 million above request, will go to completing the Kazakhstan infrastructure project), and $8 million is for defense and military contacts (meets request). (pp. 156-58)

The $7 million in new initiatives is for DoD “to work closely with the relevant congressional committees in identifying and determining new avenues to pursue,” and includes $348,000 to upgrade Cooperative Threat Reduction staff and resources. (pp. 156-58)

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY PROGRAMS

Provides $8.5 billion for research and development on missile defense programs, $298 million below the request and $883 million below FY 2007 levels. The Committee includes a $139 million cut from the $310 million defense-wide research and development request for the Ballistic Missile Defense European Component due to the Committee’s belief “that it is premature to provide full funding for the European Component given the uncertainty surrounding the program.” (pp. 17, 382-83)

The Ballistic Missile Defense European Component would consist of a European Interceptor site in Poland, a Midcourse Radar in the Czech Republic, and the fielding of a Forward Based Radar (AN-TPY-2). The projected cost exceeds $4 billion through FY 2013 just for the tactical portion of the proposal, but this estimate leaves out costs for barracks, family housing, personnel costs for manning the facilities, and other costs associated with infrastructure at a military facility. (pp. 382-83)

The Committee adds $57 million to the $1 billion defense-wide research and development request for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, commending the program “for showing progress and promise” and instructing the Missile Defense Agency to “fully fund and execute the Aegis program as Congress intends.” $22 million of the additional Aegis funding is for ballistic signal processor and open architecture, $20 million is for upgrading two additional Aegis destroyers (Arleigh Burke Class), and $15 million is for pursuing “asymmetric” missile defense issues like cruise missile defense, which raised Committee concerns “about the lack of an integrated defense of the homeland against cruise missile, other low altitude aircraft and short range missile attacks.” The Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress within 90 days of enactment “to ensure progress toward fielding this [cruise missile defense] critical capability.” (pp. 5, 17, 289, 379, 385)

An increase of $70 million above the request is provided for missile defense programs in cooperation with Israel and an increase of $145 million above the defense-wide research and development request is provided for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The Missile Defense Agency reduced its FY 2008 request for KEI by $178 million to $228 million and “de-scoped” it to “a booster program aimed at replacing the Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor.” The Committee “disagrees with this change and has provided additional funding in an effort to accelerate this much-needed capability.” (pp. 383-84)

Provides $274 million for the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program, $3 million above the defense-wide research and development request, and encourages the Missile Defense Agency to “accelerate development and delivery of the MKV capability.” The Committee designates the MKV program as a congressional special interest item subject to prior approval reprogramming. (pp. 379, 385)

Requires the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to develop a system-wide reporting plan in order to improve the accountability and transparency of its programs. This new plan must be delivered to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the FY 2009 budget and updated semi-annually thereafter. (pp. 382)

Finally, language is included in the bill’s General Provisions mandating that National Guard personnel serving on full-time duty may perform duties in support of the ground-based elements of the National Ballistic Missile Defense System. Another provision prohibits funds from being used “for the research, development, test, evaluation, procurement, or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.” (pp. 416, 417)

RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD (RRW)

Zeroes out the Administration’s $30 million request for Navy research and development on Reliable Replacement Warhead. Additional RRW funding was requested for the Department of Energy in the House FY 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but the Committee zeroed out that funding as well. (pp. 340)

SPACE PROGRAMS (NOTE: Some programs below are administered by MDA)

Concluding that “funding for some of these follow-on systems is requested ahead of need,” the Committee cut Air Force research and development requests for the Alternative Infrared Satellite System by $155 million and Global Positioning III by $80 million.

The Committee funds the Space Radar program at the FY 2007 level of $186 million even though the Administration requested no funding for it in FY 2008. (pp. 355, 356, 361, 363)

For Air Force research and development on Space Situational Awareness, the Committee provides $198 million, including adding to the request $10 million for Space Fence upgrades, $25 million for Space Control Technology, and $20 million for Operationally Responsive Space. These efforts, associated with “responsive launch, payload, and bus development,” were added by the Committee “in light of the recent Chinese anti-satellite test.” (pp. 355, 356, 362-63)

Provides $31 million for defense-wide research and development on the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) proposed follow-on space system, the same amount as in FY 2007 adjusted for inflation. This is $75 million below the request of $106 million. The Committee expressed a desire to see the results of two demonstration satellite test launches in 2008 that “will allow the Missile Defense Agency to develop sensor requirements and a concept of operations that will drive the follow-on space system.” (pp. 378, 383)

The Committee zeroed out the Administration’s $10 million defense-wide research and development request for the Space Test Bed. This program is intended to add a “space-based defensive layer” to complement other ballistic missile defense systems. (pp. 379)

The Committee also cancelled the $7 million defense-wide research and development request for the Micro Electric Propulsion (MEP) program intended to develop new propulsion technologies for small satellites and spacecraft. (pp. 375)

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Maintains 14 fleet ballistic missile submarines and nine strategic bomber squadrons in FY 2008, the same numbers as in FY 2007. The bill maintains 495 ICBM launch facilities and control centers and 450 Minuteman missiles in FY 2008, the same numbers as in FY 2007. (pp. 20-21)

The complete analysis can be found here.

Analysis of House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY08 Defense Appropriations Bill

The Center’s Chris Hellman released his Analysis of House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222) today.

The House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill on July 25. The bill includes $459.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $3.5 billion below the Bush Administration’s request ($463.1 billion) and $39.7 billion above current levels (excluding supplementals). The full House will begin consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill the week of July 30. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet scheduled action on the bill.

Included below are some highlights relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues.

Conventional Trident Modification Program - Cuts entire Administration request of $174.5 million, but includes $100 million to develop a weapon that could strike distant targets quickly and precisely.

Missile Defense - Provides $8.5 billion for missile defense, $298 million below the request, including a $139 million cut from the $310 million requested for the third missile defense site in Europe.

Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) - Provides $398 million, $50 million above the request and $26 million above current funding levels.

Chemical Weapons Destruction - Provides $1.456 billion for the Army’s chemical munitions destruction program, the amount requested by the Administration.

The complete analysis can be found here.

Summary of Nonproliferation Provisions in the 9/11 Commission Bill

Below is an excellent summary put out today by David Culp of FCNL.

The House-Senate conference report, House Report 110-259, on H.R. 1, “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,” was filed yesterday. The House and, possibly, the Senate are expected to take up the bill tomorrow (July 27). [UPDATE: The Senate adopted the bill 85-8 late on July 26.]

Title 18 of bill contains a number of nonproliferation provisions. It:

• Repeals the limitations on the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR, or Nunn-Lugar) program and extends the program beyond the former Soviet Union.
• Authorizes the Proliferation Security Initiative.
• Authorizes such funds as necessary for the CTR program and the Energy Department’s nonproliferation programs for FY08, subject to the ceilings in the FY08 defense authorization bill. As written, this authorization does not provide any new funds.
• Creates a nonproliferation czar in the White House with the title Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism.
• Establishes the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, a six-month, bipartisan congressional commission that will report to Congress on nonproliferation issues.

Bush Administration Responds to Senate Defense Authorization Bill

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget released on Tuesday its “Statement of Administration Policy” on the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (S. 1547). The Statement details what the administration finds objectionable in the bill (or potential amendments to the bill) and then offers a few suggestions on what should be included instead.

The Statement politely begins, “The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued strong support of our national defense. However, the Administration has a number of significant concerns with S. 1547, which the Administration looks forward to addressing with Congress as the bill moves through the legislative process.”

(For highlights of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues, see my previous post.)

While veto threats abound on a number of topics, including potential amendments on U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Iran, and Guantanamo, the Statement also hits upon three areas relevant to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues:

Reductions and Requirements for Weapons Systems: A number of provisions negatively impact weapons systems and are objectionable, such as:

W76 Life Extension Program Cut: The $60 million cut to the $236 million request would significantly delay warhead production and, in turn, delivery schedules to the U.S. Navy. These funds are needed to maintain an adequate sea-based nuclear strategic deterrent consistent with national security.

Missile Defense: The Administration strongly opposes the reductions of $85 million for the U.S. missile defense site in Europe and the limitations on the availability of funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of missile defense assets in Europe, which would delay the fielding of missile defense assets to protect the U.S. and Europe against the emerging missile threat from Iran. The Administration is also strongly opposed to the $200 million cut for the Airborne Laser program, which would delay DoD’s most promising program to counter missile threats in their boost phase.

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT): While supporting the continued voluntary moratorium on testing, the Administration strongly opposes a provision of section 3122 that calls for the ratification of the CTBT. It would be imprudent to tie the hands of a future administration that may have to conduct a test of an element of an aging, unmodernized stockpile in order to assure the reliability of the nuclear deterrent force. Absent such a test, the United States may not be able to diagnose or remedy a problem in a warhead critical to the Nation’s deterrent strategy.

None of these were considered deal-breakers worthy of a veto, however, and there were no complaints for adding funds to either the DoD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program (“Nunn-Lugar”) or the DoE’s nonproliferation programs.

It is also very interesting to note that while the Statement criticizes cuts to the W76 Life Extension program (and mentions warhead production), it does not include a specific objection to cuts in the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. It will be interesting to see if the same holds true for the administration’s Statement on the House’s version of the Defense Authorization bill, where deeper cuts are likely. Could be a story here…