Are nuclear weapons expensive? Should they be exempt from sequestration? According to the Pentagon, the answers to these questions are “No” and “Yes”.
Don’t blame Moscow
On July 12, the US State Department released a major annual report on arms control compliance that has riled up nuclear weapons hawks. In its annual “Report on Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments,” the Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance assessed whether numerous countries complied with treaty obligations in 2012. Most of the media attention, though, has been on what the report says (and doesn’t say) about Russia. Since the report came out, Republican members of Congress and their supporters have repeatedly accused Moscow of violating arms control treaties, and the State Department of ignoring the problem.
New Study Downplays Threat of “Nuclear Handoff,” But Nuclear Terrorism Threat Remains
Over the past few weeks, several blogs have spotlighted a recent article by scholars Keir Lieber and Daryl Press that analyzes the threat of a nuclear weapons state transferring nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. The article – “Why States Won’t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists” — asserts that a state has little incentive to deliberately transfer nuclear weapons to a terrorist group, because if that group were to carry out a nuclear attack with said weapons, neither party would remain anonymous, and retribution from the attacked state would undoubtedly ensue.
Time for a Deal with Iran
In anticipation of the swearing in of Iran’s new president, to take place this Sunday, I have a new piece up in The National Interest. You can read the piece in its entirety here.
Some snippets below…
Skeptical observers see the installation of a more moderate president as leading to more stalling by Iran, and will be quick to call for tougher action if a next round of talks does not quickly produce results. The administration should be cognizant of this limited time in its formulation of a stance concerning renewed discussions in the fall, and should begin to build support in Congress now for the presentation of a serious, mutually beneficial offer that represents both a positive show of faith, and a test of Iran’s new president.
[snip]
There are real signs that the United States and its allies might have reason to be cautiously optimistic for the future of talks. But for this effort to work, the west must be willing to make a bold move. On Saturday, upon news of the Price-Dent letter, Rowhani tweeted approvingly that “131 [U.S.] Congressmen have signed a letter calling on President #Obama to give peace a chance with Iran’s new president #Rouhani.” Later in the day, he announced, again over Twitter, “National Security & Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s Majlis [parliament] to look into potential change in US approach to Iran.” In this moment of change, there is no such thing as “negotiating with ourselves.”
[snip]
In addition to careful consideration of its negotiating position going into the next round of talks, the administration must make a concerted effort to build support for a diplomatic approach in Congress, even if those efforts begin privately. After successfully working together to install the toughest sanctions regime ever in Iran, Congress and the administration must move together to leverage those sanctions and secure a deal.
Senate Defense Appropriators Slash DoD Request for Budget Busting B61 Bomb
The proposed life extension program for the B61 nuclear gravity bomb – the most expensive warhead refurbishment in history – is in trouble. Big trouble.
