Ever wonder why there is the perception that NNSA and STRATCOM have about as much credibility on stockpile maintenance and modernization issues as a screen door on a submarine?  As Jeffrey Lewis and I explain in a recent piece published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, one reason is vacuum tubes.  

Last fall, STRATCOM commander General Kevin Chilton sat down with The Wall Street Journal, one of the nation’s most reliable suppliers of nuclear misinformation.  The goal of his visit: to convince the paper’s Editors that U.S. nuclear weapons have more in common with ’57 Chevys than they do with, well, nuclear weapons.  Chilton pulled out a vacuum tube to illustrate is point.

According to Chilton, “This is the technology that we have . . . today.” He then took out a microchip, explaining to the credulous editorial board that, by withholding funding for the RRW Program, Congress has prevented the nuclear weapons complex from replacing outdated vacuum tubes with modern solid-state electronics.

While few would deny that our nuclear arsenal is aging, Chilton’s account is complete nonsense.

First, vacuum tubes are not used in the physics package of a single nuclear weapon design.  In fact, vacuum tubes are currently used in only three modifications of one type of nuclear weapon: the B61.  Second, the Energy Department has routinely replaced radars without nuclear testing or redesigning the physics package.  Most recently, in 2006, Sandia planned to replace the remaining vacuum tube radars in the B61.  However, NNSA canceled these latest ALTs, which would have resulted in the removal of the last vacuum tubes from the U.S. nuclear stockpile, because the U.S. Air Force preferred replacement to life extension.

While we focused our fire on Gen. Chilton in our piece, he is by no means the only culprit in this little charade.  NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino told a similar story to Congress at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in April 2007.  In making the case for the so-called RRW2 to replace the B61, D’Agostino alluded to vacuum tubes as a key example of the “several aging problems associated with the B-61.”

General Robert Smolen (USAF, Ret.), former Deputy Administrator, Defense Programs, NNSA, has been even more explicit in pointing to vacuum tubes as evidence of the need for the RRW.  At a hearing of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee in March 2008, Smolen argued:

“…we have a B-61 built in the 1960s.  We’re in the process of trying to refurbish that….We still have a lot of non-nuclear components that are tubes that we’re concerned about….[A]s the stockpile continues to age, if we are faced with continually doing life extension programs, and if some of the materials we need to do that are unavailable and we have to remanufacture new ones, then we continue to build on the uncertainty which may sometime in the future have the lab directors question whether or not, in light of all the changes, they would be able to certify those weapons.” (emphasis mine).

Of course, the Wall Street Journal could care less that they’ve been played for fools.  Chilton’s story fits squarely within their long-standing editorial position: the U.S. nuclear arsenal is on the verge of collapse.  Congress, however, is not likely to be so forgiving.

If Gen. Chilton and other nuclear weapon hawks hope to convince Congress, the American public, and the rest of the world of the merits of their cause, they’d be wise not to make arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the modernization debate.  Harping on about an obscure nonnuclear component that is not contained in the physics package of any of our nuclear weapons and continues to function reliably will make it more, not less, difficult for NNSA to rebuild its broken bond with Congress and make its case for strengthening the U.S. nuclear infrastructure.

President Barack Obama has made it clear since the beginning of his administration that negotiating a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia is a high priority.

In this new analysis, I lay out the enormous momentum building for a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires at the end of the year. I also foreshadow the political challenges in getting a new treaty through the Senate.

Here are five primary challenges I see in the future.

1. There is a short period of time available to complete all the details of an agreement (and there are many issues to be negotiated), produce the paperwork needed to go to the Senate, hold hearings, and find Senate floor time before the December 5 deadline. This may require a modest “first round agreement” by the end of the year that can then be bolstered by a “second round agreement” in 2010 or beyond.

2. So far this year, Republicans in Congress have met most of Obama’s initiatives with united opposition. It is not clear whether that attitude will extend to the START follow-on treaty.

3. Early indications suggest that Senators and former Republican officials who may support a modest follow-on treaty may not endorse reductions to 1,000 deployed nuclear weapons or fewer in a second stage of negotiations.

4. The startup of the negotiations has been slowed by key appointees only now taking their positions in the Obama administration. Moreover, the exodus of nuclear experts from government over the past eight years has resulted in a dearth of qualified officials available to implement Obama’s initiatives.

5. It is difficult for grassroots organizations to organize support for a treaty that has not yet been negotiated.

For more info, see our continually updated START Resource Center.

On April 1, the United States and Russia agreed to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in order to plan further nuclear weapons reductions.

The reaction from Senate Republicans: silence.

On April 5 in Prague, President Obama pledged to work for a world free of nuclear weapons.

And Republicans Senators said . . . nothing. An examination of press releases posted by more than 30 Republican Senate offices found no comments, whether positive or negative, on the President’s bold nuclear weapons vision.

Don’t think the lack of comment came from the Senate being in recess. The same day that President Obama gave his Prague speech, North Korea fired off a missile test.

The responses were immediate…

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called the test “a wake-up call.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) condemned North Korea and called for sanctions (as well as more funding for missile defense).

Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also found time to comment on the North Korean test.

But no one issued a press release on START or nuclear weapons elimination.

The day after the Obama address, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced weapons program cuts and increases.

A number of GOP Senators found time to condemn: Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia on ending the F-22 program; Thune of South Dakota unhappy about shelving the next generation bomber; several Senators on missile defense cuts. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) denounced Obama for disarming America in a time of war.

Some even praised: Hatch of Utah happy with the air tanker decision; Collins of Maine delighted that Maine shipyards may build all three DDG-1000 destroyers; McCain with the entire plan.  

But the nuclear weapons decisions? Nada, zip, zilch. Not a word.

What does it mean? Is silence golden? Is silence consent? Or is silence, well, just silence?

Republicans will rush to the ramparts to protect conventional weapons programs in their states, support missile defense and denounce North Korea. But they are reluctant to either support or oppose new policies on nuclear weapons.  

During the Bush years, the GOP was only lukewarm about nuclear weapons. The fight against new nuclear weapons was led for years by Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson.  

Last year, when Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) tried on the House floor to add $10 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, he lost 145 – 271, with 44 Republicans voting against him.

What’s the bottom line? It appears Republican Senators are “reserving their options” on a new nuclear weapons treaty. Which gives arms controllers time to educate lawmakers and the public about the benefits of a follow on to START.

And that is good news indeed.

The spat between the United States and China over the recent naval incident in the South China Sea recalls another standoff involving the U.S. Navy a year ago.

On January 6, 2008, five Iranian speed boats circled three U.S. Navy warships. Before they turned away, one of the U.S. ships was reportedly on the verge of firing at the Iranian vessels. “I do not have a direct link with my counterpart in the Iranian Navy,” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, told reporters in the aftermath of the incident.

That could change soon. Congress is crafting a proposal to set up a hotline between Iranian and U.S. naval officials operating in the Persian Gulf.

The resolution, introduced today by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Geoff Davis (R-KY), calls for the United States to negotiate an “Incidents At Sea Arrangement” with Iran along the lines of the 1972 agreement that helped prevent naval incidents between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The arrangement between Washington and Moscow called for measures to avoid collisions; a requirement to maintain a safe distance from enemy ships under surveillance; and an obligation to inform vessels of submarine maneuvers near them. The agreement ended a series of incidents — ranging from ships bumping into one another to aircraft coming dangerously close to each other — that the two superpowers worried could set off a more serious confrontation.

Today, U.S.-Iranian naval interactions in the Persian Gulf pose a similar risk. A transit route for 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, the Gulf is host to numerous U.S. naval ships. American ships operating in the Gulf currently have little or no protocol for dealing with the Iranian navy, which includes six submarines, five principal surface ships, 320 coastal and patrol ships, five mine warfare ships, and 21 amphibious ships. “This is a very volatile area,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last year. “The risk of an incident, and of an incident escalating, is real.”

The 30-cent jump in oil prices that followed the January 2008 skirmish between U.S. and Iranian ships is a preview of what a more serious confrontation in the Gulf could mean for energy prices and the world economy. Of course, should an open confrontation between the U.S. and Iranian navies occur, the situation could quickly escalate out of control with dire military, humanitarian, and political repercussions.

An “Incidents At Sea Arrangement” between the United States and Iran would help protect American lives and treasure in the world’s most important strategic oil chokepoint. It would also start a dialogue between the two countries that could help build trust and establish momentum for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a top priority for the Obama administration.

We’re pleased to announce that just yesterday, the Center’s Senior Diplomatic Fellow, Ambassador Peter Galbraith, was appointed U.N. deputy envoy to Afghanistan. His new appointment undoubtedly will be a challenging one as Amb. Galbraith will handle p…