Gary Hart: An Early Victory for Obama Leadership

Gary Hart, Chairman of the Center’s sister organization, Council for a Livable World, penned a terrific short piece in HuffPo today on what could be an early victory for Obama: reaching an agreement with Russia to cap the nuclear arsenal of each country at 1000 nuclear weapons.

Every era creates its own legacy. The least worthwhile legacy of the Cold War is nuclear arsenals. They provide no meaningful deterrence to terrorists. No war plans envision their use. They serve no military or diplomatic purpose.

Very soon, against the backdrop of international banking crises and restructuring of soaring social safety net obligations, the new Obama administration must look for meaningful victories that are affordable and that increase security. Of the achievable goals, none could come closer to making the world safer than the reduction and possible eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals.

Arms reduction negotiations were not vigorously pursued during recent years. Strangely, the end of the Cold War made getting rid of nuclear weapons less, rather than more, important. To the skeptics who question whether elimination of the worst weapons of mass destruction can be accomplished, the question has to be asked: Why not?

Within the first Obama term, the U.S. and Russia could readily agree to overall ceilings of 1000 nuclear weapons each. Military commanders on both sides clearly understand this is more than enough to obliterate each other and still have plenty left over to destroy most of the rest of the world. As verification of the destruction of excessive weapons takes place, both sides then have political and moral authority to call upon the Chinese, the French, and the British, and other nuclear states, to begin dismantling their arsenals, and negotiations can continue to reduce overall numbers, step by step, even more drastically.

This is not a military problem. Even the most hard-line strategist admits we don't have any use for our current nuclear arsenals. It is a problem of political will and determination, and leaders who wake up one day and say: Let's do it.

Amen.

Joe Cirincione on “False Claims of Bush's Success on WMD”

Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, and Alexandra Bell, Research Associate at Ploughshares, put out a great piece on HuffPo on Tuesday that reviews and debunks many of the somewhat outrageous claims made by the Bush administration about its legacy, including many nuclear weapons issues. The full piece is available here, although I’m also including the full text of it below as well.

The victors write history. Few would ascribe that right to the outgoing Bush Administration. The "Highlights of Accomplishments and Results of the Administration of George W. Bush" is fifty pages of glossy photos and false claims of the last eight years, complete with "Did You Know" sections usually seen in 8th grade textbooks.

Some of the claims have already been rebutted on Huffington Post.

Here, we just want to set the record straight on the 10 big wins claimed on nuclear weapons. Rather than making us safer, President Bush leaves office with nearly every proliferation problem more dangerous than when he entered. Here are the claims and the facts.

"1-Prevented our Enemies from Threatening America and our Allies with
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)"

True, that there were no attacks in the seven years following 9/11, but there were also none in the seven years previous. Globally, threats have grown. Every member of the "axis of evil" is more dangerous to America today than in 2001. Iraq is in turmoil; Iran and North Korea advanced their nuclear programs more in the past five years than in the previous ten. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan. Nuclear sites around the world remain at risk while funding for securing and eliminating nuclear threats stagnates. Net risk has increased.

"2-Secured a commitment from North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program."

True, but only after the neoconservative fantasy of overthrowing the Pyongyang regime thwarted negotiations for five years. Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary of State John Bolton championed policies that let North Korea go from having enough fissile material for 2 weapons in 2001 to enough for 12 by 2006. It restarted its plutonium processing, withdrew from the NPT, tested new missiles and detonated a nuclear bomb. It also may have traded nuclear secrets with Syria, Pakistan and Iran. At the end of 2006, the Bush Administration finally began negotiations in earnest and got the tenuous agreement that stands today. It is a deal we could have secured eight years ago.

"3- Persuaded Libya to disclose and dismantle all aspects of its WMD and
advanced missile programs and renounce terrorism."

This is the most notable success of the Bush years, but made possible only by breaking with the neocon strategy. Instead of trying to change the Libyan regime, we changed the regime's behavior. US military strength played a role, but so did strong alliances, negotiations, sanctions, security assurances and persuasion over four administrations. Diplomacy delivered the victory, not force. Libya has now dismantled its nuclear, chemical and long-range missile programs. It provided the model for stopping the North Korean programs and could be applied to Iran.

"4- Withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and operationalized missile defense."

We did withdraw from the treaty, but all we have to show for it is a scarecrow of a weapons system. Over the past 8 years, the U.S. has spent almost $70 billion on anti-missile systems with no real increase in capability. The Bush-created Missile Defense Agency Pentagon faked tests, misled Congress and adopted a bizarre "spiral development" process in which interceptors and radars are deployed before they are fully tested, fail, are fixed, fail again, are fixed again, etc. This $9 billion dollar-a-year booster club should be disbanded; the weapons devolved back to the management and budgets of the military services from whence they came.

"5- Dismantled the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network."

Partially true. The A.Q. Khan smuggling network was finally disrupted in 2004, only after sensitive technology was transferred to Iran, Libya, North Korea and possibly other states. Pakistan's lack of cooperation, including its refusal to allow Khan to be questioned, has thwarted attempts of the U.S. and its allies to determine if the network persists. European intelligence reports note that nuclear black market sales continue in the region.

"6- Established the Proliferation Security Initiative and multilateral coalitions to stop WMD proliferation and strengthen our ability to locate and secure nuclear and radiological materials around the world."

The Proliferation Security Initiative is a good idea of marginal benefit. It is good at detecting and stopping illicit shipments of large items, like missiles and centrifuges, but cannot stop a suitcase full of plutonium or key nuclear components shipped through legitimate channels. This program was a major talking point of the administration, but did little to stop the nuclear program in Iran, for example. The legacy booklet points out that Bush programs have removed enough material from insecure sites for 30 nuclear bombs. That's good, but there is enough material in the world for 200,000, says Harvard's Matt Bunn. This boast is like bragging about throwing a bucket of water on a burning building.

"7- Halved the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile five years ahead of schedule."

This has been positive. We have moved ahead of schedule to cut weapons down to the numbers negotiated with Russia in the 2002 Moscow Treaty. The problem is that the treaty has no verification provisions, no dismantlement requirement and expires the day it comes into force. After this treaty the Bush Administration ended arms negotiations with Russia, leaving the increasingly authoritarian state with over ten thousands thermonuclear bombs and a deteriorating command and control system.

This is dangerous even during good times; today, U.S.-Russian relations are at their worst point since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Administration plans to expand NATO and deploy anti-missile bases on Russia's borders inflamed Russian concerns over U.S. intentions.
There remains no coherent plan for addressing the danger from the almost 1,300 Russian nuclear warheads poised for attack within 15 minutes and thousands more in insecure storage. Former Senator Sam Nunn warns, "It's insane for us, 16 years after the Cold War, to think of the Russian president having four or five minutes to make a decision about whether what may be a false warning requires a response before he loses his retaliatory force."

The War to Nowhere

Finally, the greatest sin in the Bush Legacy Book is one of omission. Nowhere does the history note that senior officials led by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney intentionally misled the American people on the threat from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from Iraq. Not one claim was true. At the time of the invasion Iraq did not have any significant quantities of these weapons or weapons components, did not have any programs for making these weapons, did not have any plans to restart programs to make these weapons and did not have any operational ties to Al Qaeda or involvement in the attacks of September 11.

President Bush called the failure to find any weapons in Iraq "a disappointment." It is much more. President Bush committed the greatest mistake any president can: he lead the nation into an unnecessary war. That is a legacy we will never forget.

Gary Hart: What a Year It Might Be

Gary Hart, Chairman of the Center’s sister organization, Council for a Livable World, wrote a great piece in the Huffington Post yesterday on what 2008 may portend for the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, included below.


Even as the new president and administration struggle to restructure and transform the American economy in 2009, consider this possibility: 2009 could be the year when the two former Cold warriors, America and Russia, decide to make dramatic reductions in nuclear weapons and convene an international conference of all nuclear nations to agree to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

By December 2009, the START I treaty will terminate unless renewed. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty must be reviewed by 2010. And a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been in abeyance for years. These are all relics of the Cold War which, thank God, ended 18 years ago, but there are the framework for more dramatic action.

A year ago four prominent Americans proposed elimination of all nuclear weapons. An international organization has been formed to support this ideal. Both involve conservative figures who, during the Cold War, were not known as leading arms reduction advocates. Clearly, a serious groundswell is forming to collectively embrace a goal few of us ever thought possible -- elimination of the most dangerous instruments of war ever devised by man.

Improvement in the US-Russian relationship is imperative in our own interest. We have many more areas of common interests than we have differences. Climate change, energy security, combating terrorism, pandemic protections, and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are among these common interests. At the center, however, is the issue of reversing the Cold War competition in nuclear weapons and leading other nations to do likewise.

Some will say "it's the economy, stupid," and thus suggest that nothing else can be done until we recover. But that suggests the United States and its new president can only do one thing at a time. This is flawed thinking. Even while building a new 21st century economy, the Obama administration must look for bold initiatives such as Nuclear Zero that demonstrate we live in a new world and new century featuring entirely new realities and the United States intends to play a new and creative leadership role in it.

This would make 2009 one of the happiest new years of all time.

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.

Consensus from 60 Experts on Arms Control Priorities for Obama Admin.

We all know that when President-elect Obama is sworn into office on January 20, 2009, the list of issues vying for his time will be extensive. From the economy to Iraq to energy to loose nukes, he is going to face one of the – if not the – most challenging set of problems any incoming administration has faced in U.S. history. This is already a given. What's not, however, is exactly which priorities will top his agenda from day one.

To that end, the Center just released a report that identifies key recommendations for how the Obama Administration can address what every presidential candidate since 2000 has said is the gravest threat to international security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

The report is the result of six meetings with 60 leading national security experts from backgrounds as diverse as think tanks, foundations, academia, advocacy, and Congress, which were co-chaired by the Center's chairman, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) and the chairman, Sen. Gary Hart (ret.), of its sister organization, Council for a Livable World.

The "clear consensus" of the group on the top three nuclear non-proliferation priorities for the incoming administration were to:

• Provide a new direction on nuclear weapons policy, emphasizing "minimum deterrence," extension of START, and negotiations for further reductions with Russia
• Secure all vulnerable fissile material in four years to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism
• And ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

In addition, the group outlined a second tier set of priorities that included:

• Negotiations with Iran without preconditions
• Re-committing to promises made at the 1995 NPT entension
• Conditioning further deployment of the third missile defense site on proven tests
  
• And restructuring government to deal at a higher level with arms control

Find this clear, direct discussion of concrete and vital arms control priorities in its entirety on the Center's website. Find the executive summary and list of participants here.

The Economist on "Banning the Bomb" in 2009

Speaking of bringing the discussion of nuclear abolition to the mainstream, I recently learned of another terrific article by Peter Craig on the topic in The Economist’s “The World in 2009” that came out a couple of days ago. (h/t Masoud Shafaee)

One prediction about 2009 can be made with absolute confidence: nuclear weapons will not be abolished. However wonderful it may be in theory to remove the threat of nuclear annihilation once and for all, the idea of simply banning the bomb has long seemed like so much pie in the sky. But here’s a paradox. Talk about abolition is going to grow louder. And the talkers will not be only the usual dreamers. Some hard-headed practitioners of realpolitik will be joining the fray.

Oddly enough, what will drive the growing talk about outright abolition is the world’s failure to achieve the much more modest objective of preventing new countries from joining the nuclear club. George Bush made stopping “evil” regimes such as North Korea and Iran from getting the bomb a big part of his presidency. In neither case did he succeed. North Korea let off some kind of bomb in 2006, and nobody is certain that it will honour a later promise to disarm. Iran has meanwhile ignored United Nations resolutions (and sanctions) calling on it to stop enriching uranium, which many governments think, despite Iran’s denials, it intends to use for a nuclear weapon.

If dangerous-looking countries such as Iran and North Korea build nuclear weapons, why should the official nuclear-armed powers (America, Russia, Britain, France and China), let alone the “unofficial” ones (India, Pakistan and Israel), give up theirs? They won’t. But their recent failure to halt actual proliferation in North Korea and potential proliferation in Iran has taught the nuclear powers a lesson. The haves have learnt that unless they start at least to talk about their own eventual disarmament they will find it hard to get many of the have-nots on their side when it comes to preventing further proliferation.

Click here for the full article.

Boston Globe on “No Nukes”

The Boston Globe published an interesting piece yesterday on the growing support for nuclear abolition. Though not exactly groundbreaking, it is noteworthy in that the idea is moving from an inside the beltway discussion towards a mainstream debate.

FOR MANY AMERICANS, the idea of a world without nuclear weapons is a bit like the idea of a world without war or disease - it would be nice, but, contra John Lennon, it's hard to imagine.

That's not to say lots of people haven't devoted themselves to the cause. As the atomic age was dawning, Gandhi was already demanding its end, and today Pope Benedict XVI echoes that call. A host of international organizations, from Greenpeace to Mayors for Peace to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to the German Green Party, are dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons. Many of them have been at it for decades.

The movement, however, has always carried utopian associations, and been conflated in the popular imagination with pacifism. The leaders of the world's nuclear powers, their global stature buttressed by their atomic arsenals, have, with a few exceptions, shown little real interest in the idea.

This is changing. Total nuclear disarmament - "getting to zero" in the arms-control argot - has become a mainstream cause. Voices from the heights of the American foreign policy establishment have begun to argue that, in a world of inevitably unruly globalization, increasing interest in nuclear energy, incomplete alliances, ambitious suicide terrorists, and ever-present human fallibility, it will never be enough to improve controls on the world's nuclear weapons, or to reduce their numbers. We have to commit to eliminating them altogether.

These arguments are being made not by popes and mahatmas and Greens but by former secretaries of state and secretaries of defense, by generals and nuclear scientists, Democrats and Republicans. The leaders of the new no-nuke movement are George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, four of the most respected figures in American foreign policy circles. Over the past two years, they have, in speeches, at arms-control conferences and, most prominently, in two widely circulated op-ed pieces, lent their authority to an idea that is still seen as fairly radical.

And there is evidence that these arguments are being taken seriously by the people who are going to be making decisions about nuclear policy in the new administration. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama repeatedly committed himself to a nuclear-free future. One of his key foreign policy advisers, Ivo Daalder, coauthored an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, a leading foreign policy journal, laying out a plan for how to get there.

Click here for the full article.

Cirincione on Obama’s Nuclear Future

The National Journal’s Lost in Translation has a great interview with Joe Cirincione on President-elect Obama’s nuclear future here.

The interview includes further potential reductions with Russia, prospects for the CTBT, missile defense, and de-alerting nuclear weapons.

Good stuff. Check it out.

Lost US Nuclear Bomb in Greenland

Using declassified documents obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act, BBC news released details this week about a story of a missing US nuclear bomb.

No, not the 1,000 misplaced nuclear missile components from June.

Not the six armed nuclear cruise missiles that were shipped from North Dakota to Louisiana either.

Or the mistaken shipment of nuclear missile nose cone fuses to Taiwan.

This is a different scenario: a missing nuclear bomb we lost after a 1968 plane crash in Greenland. (Click here to watch a short video on it.)

The story? On January 21, 1968, a United States nuclear-armed B52 bomber, flying a routine "Chrome Dome" mission over Thule Air Base in northern Greenland, crashed just a few miles from the base.

From the BBC,

A remarkable operation would unfold over the coming months to recover thousands of tiny pieces of debris scattered across the frozen bay, as well as to collect some 500 million gallons of ice, some of it containing radioactive debris.

[snip]

The high explosives surrounding the four nuclear weapons had detonated but without setting off the actual nuclear devices, which had not been armed by the crew.

The Pentagon maintained that all four weapons had been "destroyed".

This may be technically true, since the bombs were no longer complete, but declassified documents obtained by the BBC under the US Freedom of Information Act, parts of which remain classified, reveal a much darker story, which has been confirmed by individuals involved in the clear-up and those who have had access to details since.

The documents make clear that within weeks of the incident, investigators piecing together the fragments realised that only three of the weapons could be accounted for.

Even by the end of January, one document talks of a blackened section of ice which had re-frozen with shroud lines from a weapon parachute. "Speculate something melted through ice such as burning primary or secondary," the document reads, the primary or secondary referring to parts of the weapon.

By April, a decision had been taken to send a Star III submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb, which had the serial number 78252. (A similar submarine search off the coast of Spain two years earlier had led to another weapon being recovered.)

But the real purpose of this search was deliberately hidden from Danish officials.

The original underwater search was abandoned because of technical problems, and soon, winter began and the ice froze over. The search was abandoned.

According to former Los Alamos nuclear weapons designer William Chambers, who previously dealt with accidents, including this crash, "It would be very difficult for anyone else to recover classified pieces if we couldn't find them."

Not exactly a comforting national security story, given that, they contained uranium and plutonium, and "the abandoned weapons parts were highly sensitive because of the way in which the design, shape and amount of uranium revealed classified elements of nuclear warhead design," reports BBC - Not to even mention the health and environmental impact of the released radioactive material.

Read the full report here.

APCO on Future Obama Foreign Policy

Lobbyists and consultants are busy trying to figure out what an Obama administration will mean to their business interests. Although largely a recap of old news, APCO has a great rundown of Obama’s foreign policy that includes an emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation.

Obama has outlined the following key foreign policy priorities: secure loose nukes from terrorists; pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran; and renew American diplomacy.

As much as these are driven by the political requirements of a presidential election, they also signal clearly a sincere concern about nuclear safety and a desire for collaborative diplomacy. Obama also emphasized his intention to end the war in Iraq responsibly and to work hard with the Iraqi leadership to achieve political consensus. He also noted that addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue, stopping the genocide in Darfur and engaging China are priorities as well. In his discussions of foreign affairs, he often mentions that he will undertake smart diplomacy and will try to address problems by rallying international support for collaborative American leadership.

[snip]

Obama is likely to undertake an early initiative to form a genuine consensus with Europe – through NATO, the European Union and bilaterally – on a variety of issues, starting especially with the financial crisis, but including: global social issues (poverty, health, water, narcotics, trafficking in persons); security issues (nuclear weapons, terrorism, arms control); and governance (rule of law, corruption, political choice, media freedom, human rights, religious tolerance). He will press hard for greater European participation in addressing these problems, especially as they manifest themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan. NATO member states can expect to be pressured strongly and early to contribute more substantially to the effort in Afghanistan.

Obama has signaled that he will turn to addressing issues with Russia once he has built a clear consensus with Europe on the way ahead. It will no longer be easy for the Russian leadership to split Europe and the United States on energy, climate change, missile defense, democracy and human rights, and nuclear safety. While this probably means trade-offs and some compromises to achieve consensus on some issues, do not expect a weakening of core U.S. principles.

[snip]

Obama maintains that he will deploy tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, offering WTO membership, investment and normal diplomatic relations in exchange for abandoning its nuclear program and support for terrorism. Failure to take this path will result in increased economic pressure and political isolation. He would strengthen the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to provide for international sanctions against countries such as North Korea and Iran if they break the rules. Obama also wants to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials and to negotiate a global ban on the production of nuclear weapons material, principally to keep these out of the hands of terrorists. His ultimate goal is a nuclear-free world. This is the issue on which Obama concentrated while in the Senate, and he has gathered around him individuals with considerable technical expertise and political weight on this issue.

(via Politico)

SecDef Gates on Nuclear Weapons

H/T to our great research assistant for writing and to Nick Roth for great notes

On October 28, Secretary Robert Gates began his speech on nuclear weapons at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace citing Andrew Carnegie’s dedication to achieving peace in the world. He then said:

I mention all of this because one of the hard lessons of history is that it has a way of defying even the best of intentions - especially on matters of war and peace... And so even as we strive to live up to our noblest goals, as Carnegie did, we must deal with the messy realities of the world in which we live. One of those realities is the existence of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps a good additional quote arguing the need for peace in a time of conflict would have been from someone who grew up knowing the devastating power of nuclear weapons. A quote from Ronald Reagan is one example:

I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.

Gates Speech

Overall, Gates's speech made a direct case for the development of the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. Some highlights:

• Gates said today’s US nuclear weapons are currently, “safe, reliable, and secure,” but warns that the shelf life on these weapons is soon approaching. “The program we propose is not about new capabilities…It is about the future credibility of our strategic deterrent.” (The 2006 study JASONS report, of course, concluded that the plutonium cores, which are the most sensitive component of the nuclear stockpile, have lifetimes of at least 85 years. The average age of nuclear weapons in our stockpile is 21 years old. The oldest warheads are 28.)
• He argued that the stockpile is increasingly outdated, and moves further away from test design with every adjustment.
  
• The United States is the only nuclear power that is not modernizing or cannot build new nuclear weapons.
  
• "To be blunt," he argued, "there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing or pursuing a modernization program," (h/t to William Hartung's commentary on this false choice on TPM Café)

Based on Q&A

• The US could "probably should" ratify the CTBT if there were adequate verification measures.
• The Pentagon could accept RRW without nuclear explosive testing. (Does it seem slightly hard to believe that the US would accept a new nuclear weapon without testing if we also argue that we can't accept our current, scientifically-verified stockpile?)
  
• On START, Gates said there is a willingness and ability to make deeper reductions in the US and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and there will be another agreement. But, it took years to negotiate START and SALT, and he is not sure that such long and comprehensive agreements are in either country’s best interest.

Looking Ahead

With a few positive notes intertwined, Gates' speech gave cause for concern to those of us working to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. But the good news is that the increasingly-likely-to-be-elected presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has endorsed this vision:

I believe the United States should lead the international effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world. I also believe that our policy towards the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) affects this leadership position. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads. I do not support a premature decision to produce the RRW.

Now that would be a tribute to a legacy of peace.

Nukes in the VP debate

Props to Moderator Gwen Ifill for raising the issue of nuclear weapons in last night's debate... for better or for worse.

Gwen Ifill:

Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?

Gov. Palin:

Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.

Come again?

Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.

But for those countries -- North Korea, also, under Kim Jong Il -- we have got to make sure that we're putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.

Sen. Biden:

Nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported.

Or not?

John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections. John McCain has not been -- has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with -- and let me put it another way. My time is almost up.

Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, new senator, reached across the aisle to my colleague, Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, "We've got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real. Every major -- I shouldn't say every -- on the two at least that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arms control regime in the world.

Ifill again raised the issue in a question about Iran:

Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Sen. Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable [Pakistan]? Explain why.

Biden:

Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.

But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan, a stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being.

There have been 7,000 madrassas built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

Ifill:

Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?

Palin:

Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.

An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are one that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.

And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.

Major Senate Amendments to FY08 Defense Authorization Bill

The Senate today resumes consideration of the bill after a day in which there were no recorded votes. There will also be no recorded votes on Friday or Monday. The Senate has been unable to come to a unanimous consent agreement governing how many and which amendments can be considered. After a query by Sen. John Warner (R-VA) to the chair, it was announced that about 220 amendments had been filed to the bill. There are several amendments that are holding up the bill, including one by Sen. DeMint (R-SC) to eliminate earmarks in the bill.

Highlighted below are amendments related to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues. New information is bolded and italicized. Amendments are divided into:

• Weapons Of Mass Destruction
• Other Foreign Policy Issues/Terrorism
• Misc. Pentagon, Department Of Energy Issues
• Amendments Already Considered

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Sense of Congress on renewal of START I treaty

Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) filed amendment No. 5423 to express the sense of Congress that the President should renew the treaty between the U.S. and Russia on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed at Moscow July 31, 1991 (commonly referred to as the “START I Treaty”), before the expiration date of December 5, 2009.

Study on surveillance of nuclear weapons stockpile

Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) filed amendments No. 5424 and 5460 to conduct an independent technical study of the efforts of the National Nuclear Security Administration to monitor the aging of, and to detect defects related to aging in, nuclear weapons components and materials that could affect the reliability of nuclear weapons currently in the nuclear weapons stockpile.

Restrictions on nuclear agreement with Russia

Sen. Coleman (R-MN) filed amendment No. 5362 to prevent the United States from entering into an agreement for cooperation with Russia pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act until the following certifications have been made: 1) Russia has suspended all nuclear assistance to Iran and all transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran, or Iran has completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs; and 2) all Russian forces have been withdrawn from the undisputed territory of the sovereign state of Georgia.

Report on incentives for U.S. Air Force personnel working on nuclear weapons

Sen. Conrad (D-ND) filed amendment No. 5367 to require a report on assessing the feasibility, advisability, utility, and cost effectiveness of establishing new retention bonuses or assignment incentive pay for members of the Air Force involved in the operation, maintenance, handling, and security of nuclear weapons.

Airborne laser

Sen. Brownback (R-KS) filed amendment No. 5359 on the airborne laser system.

OTHER FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES/TERRORISM

Enhanced partnership with Pakistan

Sens. Biden (D-DE), Kerry (D-MA) and Hagel (R-NE) filed amendment No. 5374 to: 1) authorize governmental assistance funds to Pakistan of up to $1.5 billion per year in each of the next five fiscal years; 2) restrict military assistance funds after FY 2010 unless it is certified that Pakistani security forces are making concerted efforts to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban and not interfering in Pakistan’s political and judicial processes; and 3) require a comprehensive, cross-border strategy for working with Pakistan, Afghanistan, NATO, and other like-minded allies to best implement effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measurers.

Counterterrorism report

Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) filed amendments No. 5299 and No. 5487 to require the Executive Branch to produce a semiannual comprehensive report on the status of U.S. efforts, and the level of progress achieved to date, to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates under the Global War on Terrorism.

Annual report on military power of Iran

Sen. Brownback (R-KS) filed amendments No. 5360 and 5488 to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress reports, in both unclassified and classified form, on the current and future military and security strategy of Iran.

South and Central Asia

Sens. Biden (D-DE) and Lugar (R-IN) filed amendment No. 5441 to create the position of special envoy for South and Central Asia regional cooperation.

Afghanistan and Pakistan border region

Sens. Levin (D-MI) and Warner (R-VA) filed amendment No. 5473 requiring reports on enhancing security and stabilization in the region along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iran sanctions

Sens. Dodd (D-CT) and Shelby (R-AL) introduced amendment No. 5485, their bill to impose additional sanctions on Iran.

MISC. PENTAGON, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ISSUES

Director of independent cost assessment

Sens. Levin (D-MI), McCain (R-AZ) and Akaka (D-HI) filed amendment No. 5353 to create a Director of Independent Cost Assessment in the Department of Defense responsible for monitoring and reviewing all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted in connection with major defense acquisition programs.

Providing assistance in major attacks

Sen. Feingold (D-WI) filed amendment No.5300 requiring the establishment Within the Armed Forces of units for assistance in managing consequences of incidents of national significance involving a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Device, or High-Yield Explosives.

Military inventory system

Sen. Sanders (I-VT), Feingold (D-WI) and Whitehouse (D-RI) filed amendment No. 5320 to improve inventory systems of the military departments and reducing the acquisition of unnecessary secondary inventory. The amendment would fence off $100 million in inventory purchases until the Secretary of Defense makes some required certifications about reducing inventories beyond requirements.

Nuclear waste disposal

Sens. Inhofe (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID) and Craig (R-ID) have filed amendment No. 5468 to authorize $247,371,000 for defense nuclear waste disposal, which appears to be an increase of $50 million.

MAJOR AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED

Missile defense

Sens. Kyl (R-AZ), Warner, Vitter, Inhofe, Martinez, Levin amendment No. 5414 modified from an earlier version earmarking $89 million to deploy the missile defense X-band radar at a classified location was adopted by voice vote on September 10.

Missile defense

Sens. Vitter (R-LA), Inhofe (R-OK) and Kyl (R-AZ) amendment No. 5280 to increase missile defense funding was defeated 39 – 57 on September 10. The amendment would have added $100 million for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and $171 million for other missile defense programs, including up to $87 million for the Ground Based Midcourse Defense.

2008 Democratic Party Platform on Nuke and Nonpro Issues

The final 2008 Democratic Party platform, as approved by the Platform Committee at its meeting on August 9, was recently floated around. (To my knowledge, the Republican Platform Committee so far has not circulated a final version.) Provided below are the relevant portions on nuclear weapons and other nonproliferation issues.

Preventing the Spread and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

We will urgently seek to reduce dramatically the risks from three potentially catastrophic threats: nuclear weapons, biological attacks, and cyber warfare. In an age of terrorism, these dangers take on new dimensions. Nuclear, biological, and cyber attacks all pose the potential for largescale damage and destruction to our people, to our economy and to our way of life. The capacity to inflict such damage is spreading not only to other countries, but also potentially to terrorist groups.

A World Without Nuclear Weapons

America will seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. We face the growing threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or the materials to make them, as more countries seek nuclear weapons and nuclear materials remain unsecured in too many places. As George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn have warned, current measures are not adequate to address these dangers. We will maintain a strong and reliable deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist, but America will be safer in a world that is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminates all of them. We will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Secure Nuclear Weapons and the Materials to Make Them

We will work with other nations to secure, eliminate, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials to dramatically reduce the dangers to our nation and the world. There are nuclear weapons materials in 40 countries, and we will lead a global effort to work with other countries to secure all nuclear weapons material at vulnerable sites within four years. We will work with nations to increase security for nuclear weapons. We will convene a summit in 2009 (and regularly thereafter) of leaders of Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and other key countries to agree on implementing many of these measures on a global basis.

End the Production of Fissile Material

We will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. We will work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology so that countries cannot build–or come to the brink of building–a weapons program under the guise of developing peaceful nuclear power. We will seek to double the International Atomic Energy Agency’s budget, support the creation of an IAEA-controlled nuclear fuel bank to guarantee fuel supply to countries that do not build enrichment facilities, and work to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

End Cold War Nuclear Postures

To enhance our security and help meet our commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will seek deep, verifiable reductions in United States and Russian nuclear weapons and work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically. We will work with Russia to take as many weapons as possible off Cold War, quick-launch status, and extend key provisions of the START Treaty, including its essential monitoring and verification requirements. We will not develop new nuclear weapons, and will work to create a bipartisan consensus to support ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which will strengthen the NPT and aid international monitoring of nuclear activities.

Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. We will present Iran with a clear choice: if you abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, you will receive meaningful incentives; so long as you refuse, the United States and the international community will further ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions inside and outside the U.N. Security Council, and sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime. The Iranian people and the international community must know that it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing.

De-Nuclearize North Korea

We support the belated diplomatic effort to secure a verifiable end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and to fully account for and secure any fissile material or weapons North Korea has produced to date. We will continue direct diplomacy and are committed to working with our partners through the six-party talks to ensure that all agreements are fully implemented in the effort to achieve a verifiably nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

Biological and Chemical Weapons

We will strengthen U.S. intelligence collection overseas to identify and interdict would-be bioterrorists before they strike. We will also build greater capacity to mitigate the consequences of bio-terror attacks, ensuring that the federal government does all it can to get citizens the information and resources they need to help protect themselves and their families. We will accelerate the development of new medicines, vaccines, and production capabilities, and lead an international effort to detect and diminish the impact of major infectious disease epidemics. And we will fully fund our contribution to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and work to ensure that remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons are destroyed swiftly, safely, and securely.

Leonor Tomero on the Future of GNEP

The Center’s Leonor Tomero recently published an excellent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online on the future of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

Tomero argues:

The rush to expand nuclear energy has resulted in many ad hoc developments, an increased interest in sensitive nuclear technologies, and a weakening of rules governing nuclear trade. GNEP has exacerbated the risk of nuclear proliferation while many other proposals do not offer a foolproof solution. Clear rules and a careful, concerted international approach to limit proliferation are needed. Although Congress has slowed GNEP's implementation, it may already be too late (or at least too difficult) to convince non-nuclear weapon countries to give up their nuclear ambitions. Yet, halting the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies and establishing a fair international system--rather than encouraging a system of haves and have-nots--will be crucial to ensuring that the risks associated with an expansion of nuclear power remain manageable.

Click here for the full article.

Reif and Tomero: New Delhi's Nuclear Gains

The Center’s Kingston Reif and Leonor Tomero had a terrific letter to the editor published in today’s Wall Street Journal that refutes several claims about the U.S.-India nuclear deal. The full letter is provided below.

New Delhi's Nuclear Gains
July 30, 2008

In "A Civil Nuclear Power" (July 21), M.R. Srinivasan makes a number of arguments about the U.S.-India nuclear deal that do not withstand close scrutiny.

First, on the issue of nuclear testing, there is nothing in either the India-specific safeguards agreement or the 123 agreement that says nuclear trade with India will cease if India conducts a nuclear test. Moreover, both agreements support India's efforts to develop a "strategic reserve" of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply, even if that disruption is caused by India's resumption of nuclear testing. These provisions fail to uphold key conditions of U.S. law contained in the Hyde Act that Congress passed in 2006.

Second, the claim that the deal would have no impact on India's nuclear weapons production capacity doesn't comport with the statements of key Indian officials. As a former head of India's National Security Advisory Board puts it, "it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production."

Finally, the deal will not help India meet its burgeoning energy needs. Even with the deal, nuclear power is not expected to exceed 8-9% of India's total electrical capacity through 2032. Instead the United States should encourage and assist India with efforts to burn coal more cleanly, devise better energy efficiency and conservation programs, modernize and expand its grid and develop decentralized renewable energy resource generation.

Kingston Reif and Leonor Tomero
Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Washington

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 Highlights A World Free of Nuclear Weapons in Berlin Speech

In his much awaited speech in Berlin today, Sen. Barack Obama again reiterated his support for a world free of nuclear weapons:

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has made the elimination of nuclear weapons a major theme of his campaign, including the release of a television spot that highlights the risk of the weapons falling into the hand of terrorists.

Sen. McCain has also endorsed the same goal in a May 2008 speech.

For more information on the candidates’ positions on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation related issues, check out the following Center analyses:

• Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement, on Nuclear Weapons
• In a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security
• Obama vs. McCain: A Side-By-Side Comparison on Arms Control
• Memorandum to McCain and Obama: A New Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda
• McCain's Big Non-Proliferation Speech: Cheers, Jeers, and Questions

U.S. India Nuclear Deal Post-Confidence Vote Update

As expected, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh survived Tuesday’s confidence vote. Singh secured 275 votes while his opponents managed 256. There were 10 abstentions. As I noted last week, the vote was marked by all sorts of questionable shenanigans, including the renaming of an airport after a key lawmakers’ father and the temporary release of a number of jailed lawmakers – some of them convicted murderers – so they could take part in the vote.

Needless to say, these tactics did not endear Singh to his opponents:

At one point, legislators from the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party waved wads of cash in the air, saying the Congress Party and its allies had tried to bribe them to stay away from the vote. The ruckus forced a temporary adjournment of the house.

With the confidence vote out of the way, the IAEA Board of Governors is scheduled to take up the India-specific safeguards agreement on August 1, after which the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), must exempt India from international rules barring nuclear trade with non-NPT signatories. Once these two steps have been completed, the U.S. Congress will be free to vote on the final U.S.-India 123 agreement.

With time running out to complete the deal before Congress is set to adjourn on September 26, both the Singh government and the Bush administration are ready to push hard to rush the deal through the NSG and Congress.

Commenting on the recent developments in a conference call with reporters yesterday, David Mulford, the U.S. ambassador to India, stated:

The US has been ready and is now geared up… We are very actively on our way… We hope we can be in a position to send the legislation to Congress in early September.

For this to happen, the NSG would have to complete its deliberations on the deal by the end of August, an incredibly short time-frame given that at least two NSG sessions are likely to be necessary. However, even in the unlikely event that Congress does take up the 123 agreement in early September, a lame-duck session would almost certainly be required, as Congress must be in continuous session for at least 30 days (or 45, depending on who you talk to) in order to take action on the agreement. For the moment, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has all but ruled out the possibility of a lame-duck session.

For more on why we think rushing the deal is a terrible idea, see here and here.

That’s all for now. Stay tuned for more in the coming weeks.

Craziness in India

Who knew that Indian politics could be so entertaining? With a hugely important confidence vote scheduled for July 22, the Indian political landscape has been thrown into a tizzy.

Last week, in protest over the government’s decision to push ahead with the U.S.-India nuclear deal, the Indian Communists, who virulently oppose the deal, withdrew their support for the Congress Party-led governing coalition and threw in their lot with the BJP, an ironic political alliance of convenience to say the least. For its part, the Congress Party secured the support of the Samajwadi Party. Neither bloc commands an absolute majority, and while the Congress Party is expected to survive, the outcome is still in doubt.

And how are the two sides attempting to woo “undecideds” to their cause? Via the AP’s Matt Rosenberg:

So with such a close vote – both sides have each lined up around 260 lawmakers, a dozen shy of what they need to win – no deal appears too outlandish in an atmosphere that is short on ideology and long on patronage.

[snip]

The government... announced Thursday that it was naming the airport in the northern city of Lucknow after former Prime Minister Charan Singh, whose son Ajit heads a small political party with three sitting lawmakers.

India's Central Bureau of Investigation — its FBI — recently announced it might investigate corruption allegations against the Samajwadi Party's main rival, Mayawati, the single-named chief minister of the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

A handful of jailed Congress lawmakers — including one serving a life sentence for murder — have also secured bail so they can vote. The move is legal, but was harshly criticized by the Communist Party of India, which said "there is a question of political morality involved."

What? You mean releasing convicted felons and murders for two days purely for political purposes borders on the politically immoral. You don’t say!

A report filed in London’s Daily Telegraph expands on the story of the “handful of jailed Congress lawmakers”:

The most infamous of the six MPs is Mohammed Shahabuddin from the lawless eastern state of Bihar, who is serving a life term for killing a political opponent. His bail has been granted on the condition that he pays his expenses and those of his police escort.

Another is Rajesh Ranjan, a fellow National Socialist Party MP also from Bihar, who was imprisoned for murdering a local trade unionist.

"Both are important to the vote of confidence and are happy to be out of prison and spend time with fellow MPs in Delhi" senior party leader Ramkripal Yadav said.

Unbelievable!