by Kingston Reif
On May 26 the House approved the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540). Below is a review and analysis of the nuclear weapons related provisions in the bill, both good and bad. For easier reading, the contents include:
I. New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions
II. Nuclear targeting strategy
III. Russian Nuclear Forces
IV. National missile defense (i.e. ground based midcourse defense)
V. Missile defense cooperation with Russia
VI. Non-strategic nuclear weapons reductions
VII. Nuclear material security
VIII. Funding for nuclear modernization
IX. White House Action
X. Senate Action
I. New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions
Section 1052 calls for a report on the Pentagon’s plan for implementing the New START treaty. The plan would include a description of the feasibility and potential cost savings of accelerating New START implementation. Regarding accelerating implementation, the House Armed Services Committee’s report on H.R. 1540 states: “In this context, the committee notes that the next nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference will occur in 2015.” The provision was part of Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner’s (R-OH) mark of the Strategic Forces section of the bill and was uncontroversial.
Section 1055, an amendment offered in Committee by Rep. Lamborn (R-CO), would delay force reductions under New START until the Secretaries of Defense and Energy certify that the plan to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and delivery systems is being carried out. The provision also limits reductions in the stockpile of U.S. warheads held in reserve until several conditions are met. In particular, two new facilities—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility and Uranium Processing Facility—must be operational, which will not be until at least 2024. Finally, Section 1055 prevents any unilateral reductions below the limits contained in New START. The amendment passed on a party line vote. It was drawn from a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Turner (R-OH) on May 5 known as the New START Implementation Act (H.R. 1750).
Comment: Section 1052 takes on added importance now that Russia is known to have already met two of the three central New START limits. If Russia has already met two of the treaty’s three limits, there is no strategic or geopolitical reason why the U.S. couldn’t safely accelerate its reductions to half the seven-year timeframe allowed by New START.
The clear intent of Section 1055 is to draw out implementation of New START for as long as possible and prevent the President from making any more changes to U.S. nuclear policy so long as he remains in office. It undermines U.S. national security by constraining the Pentagon’s ability to implement the treaty and undercutting the Constitutional authority of the President and senior military leaders to determine U.S. nuclear force structure. Moreover, Section 1055 was so poorly written that Rep. Turner was forced to rewrite and amend the provision both in Committee and on the floor, lest the Department of Energy be prevented from dismantling weapons already slated for destruction and performing essential activities necessary to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear weapons.
II. Nuclear targeting strategy
Section 1056, an amendment offered in Committee by Rep. Fleming (R-LA), would prevent any changes to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy unless the President submits a report to Congress describing the implications of such changes and certifying that such changes do not require a retreat from a strategy of targeting the nuclear forces and leadership of an adversary (i.e. counterforce targeting) to a strategy of targeting cities or civilian populations (i.e. counter value targeting). The amendment passed on a party line vote. It was drawn from the New START Implementation Act.
Comment: Section 1056 constrains the President’s authority as Commander and Chief to set U.S. nuclear strategy and doctrine. Moreover, the moral difference between “counterforce” and “countervalue” targeting is greatly overstated. According to a 2009 report by the Federation of American Scientists, “in practice, counterforce targeting would have killed many tens of millions of people. “Counterforce” versus “countervalue” was a distinction without a practical difference as far as the civilian populations were concerned.”
III. Russian Nuclear Forces
Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment on the House floor requiring the Secretary of Defense to prepare an assessment of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces as it implements the New START treaty. The amendment was adopted as Section 1235 by voice vote.
Comment: According to some estimates, Russia could reduce its forces below New START’s limits of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, perhaps to as low as 350-400 delivery vehicles and 1,000-1,100 warheads (according to New START’s counting rules). This provision will help to inform Congress about the opportunities and the challenges for further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
IV. National missile defense (i.e. ground based midcourse defense)
The Committee agreed to an increase of $100 million for the ground based midcourse defense system. Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment in Committee to eliminate the increase and instead add $100 million to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account. However, Turner offered a second-degree amendment to retain the $100 million increase for the system by proposing to cut $100 million from a U.S. army reconnaissance and surveillance program. Turner’s second-degree amendment was adopted but it was opposed by every Democrat and two Republicans.
Rep. Sanchez also offered an amendment on the House floor to reduce funding for the ground-based midcourse defense system by $100 million. While the amendment failed, it received 184 votes, including 15 Republicans.
Comment: There are a number of reasons why the additional $100 million would be better spent elsewhere (or not at all):
- The U.S. ground-based mid-course defense system continues to be beset by development challenges and testing failures. Seven out of fifteen tests of the system have failed since 1999, including the last two intercept flight tests in January 2010 and December 2010.
- In testimony to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees earlier this year, Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly stated that the FY 2012 budget request of $1.16 billion for GMD reflects his decision to delay the production of seven additional interceptors and a flight test scheduled for this year until the problems that caused the most recent test failure are resolved. According to Gen. O’Reilly, “there is a reduction in our need, our funding. And we’re using that funding in order to support these other activities to return to flight testing.” An additional $100 million for GMD is money Gen. O’Reilly doesn’t need or want at this time, as it would not speed up his ability to correct the cause of the most recent test failure.
V. Missile defense cooperation with Russia
Section 1228, an amendment offered in Committee by Rep. Brooks (R-AL), would establish limitations on funds to provide Russia with access to U.S. missile defense technology. The Committee also adopted Section 1229, an amendment offered by Rep. Turner (R-OH) that would codify the language in the New START treaty resolution of ratification opposing limitations on U.S. missile defense programs and supporting improvements to defensive capabilities and require the administration to regularly report on the contents of its discussions with Russia on missile defense. The amendments were drawn from the New START Implementation Act.
Comment: Section 1228 would prohibit the exchange of missile defense data even though such exchanges could strengthen U.S. missile defenses. The FY 2011 defense bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent, contains a Sense of Congress on missile defense that includes the following: “(3) to support the efforts of the United States Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense relative to Iranian missile threats.” In addition, the Bush administration also sought cooperation with Russia on missile defense, including the sharing of early warning and other data. The New START resolution of ratification states that the Senate “stands ready to cooperate with the Russian Federation on strategic defensive capabilities,” as long as such cooperation does not constrain U.S. missile defenses. Section 1229 would infringe on the President’s ability to conduct discussions with Russia on missile defense, both bilaterally and with NATO.
VI. Non-strategic nuclear weapons reductions
The Committee adopted Section 1230, an amendment offered by Rep. Turner (R-OH) to prohibit the reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons based in Europe unless 1) the reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of these weapons is requested by the government of the host nation and 2) the President certifies that NATO has decided to support such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal. These constraints could also be waived if changes to U.S. nuclear posture in Europe are approved as part of a treaty by the Senate. The amendment passed on a party line vote. It was drawn from the New START Implementation Act.
Comment: U.S. military leaders increasingly suggest that the European deployment serves no military purpose. When asked in 2009 if U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe serve a military purpose, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Cartwright stated: “No”. Moreover, Section 1230 could have prevented President George H.W. Bush from pursuing his 1991 reductions in U.S tactical nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War, which led the Soviet Union to take similar steps, dramatically increasing U.S. security.
VII. Nuclear material security
H.R. 1540 fully funds the National Nuclear Security Administration’s request of $2.55 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment on the House floor to add $20 million to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which was adopted as Section 3115 by voice vote.
Comment: The additional $20 million will buttress the Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s ability to meet commitments to remove highly enriched uranium from Ukraine, Belarus, and Mexico in time for the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 in Seoul and assist other countries with the removal of their highly enriched uranium, including Poland and Vietnam. The additional funds will also help offset the nearly $370 million reduction below the FY 2011 request imposed on the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Account by the final continuing resolution for FY 2011.
VIII. Funding for nuclear modernization
H.R. 1540 fully funds the National Nuclear Security Administration’s request of $7.63 billion for weapons activities. The bill also approved the Defense Department’s research and development requests of $1.07 billion for the Ohio-class submarine replacement program, $197 million for a new long-range, nuclear-capable bomber, and $9.93 million for a new air launched nuclear cruise missile. The bill includes a provision that would withhold 10% of the request for the Ohio-class replacement program until the Secretary of Defense submits a report summarizing the analysis that supported the Department’s decision to reduce the planned number of missile tubes per submarine to 16.
IX. White House Action
On May 24 the Office of Management and Budget released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The SAP supports passage of the bill, but expresses serious reservations about a number of provisions, including Section 1055 on New START implementation and further nuclear force reductions and Section 1056 on nuclear targeting strategy. The White House threatened to veto the bill if these sections are included in the final version of the bill. The White House also objected to the sections of the bill on missile defense cooperation with Russia and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
X. Senate Action
The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to take up the defense bill the week of June 13. Meanwhile, Senator Jon Kyl introduced his own version of the New START Implementation Act as S. 1097 on May 26, 2011. Sen. Kyl could offer provisions of this bill as individual amendments during Senate floor consideration of the defense bill.
