The Center released the following statement in response to the Pentagon’s new strategic guidance and remarks by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs…

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation today applauds the Pentagon’s decision to scale back Pentagon spending in a way that best provides for the strength and security of our country, but labeled the move “only a step in the right direction.”

“After an unfocused Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon has come together to provide a cohesive look at the military we will need long after the current wars come to an end,” said Laicie Olson, Senior Policy Analyst, “Further reductions, if similarly strategy-driven, could be made while fully protecting the United States from military threats.”

While the full details of the plan will not be released until the Pentagon presents the Fiscal Year 2013 budget to Congress,  the President outlined their direction today, stating that “over the past ten years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace.  Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow… In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”

Olson adds that “The proposed cuts are still modest compared to drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.”

The question now is whether the Pentagon will eliminate a host of outdated and unnecessary programs that still exist.

“President Obama was right to note that our national security will be better served by getting rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future,” said Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. “To avoid excessive cuts to essential programs, the Pentagon must cut the bloated U.S. nuclear weapons budget, which is irrelevant to emerging 21st century security priorities such as terrorism, cybersecurity, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.”

The new Pentagon strategy document states, using italics for emphasis, “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

Added Reif: “Further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and scaling back planned investments in new strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities make both strategic and economic sense”

The Center anticipates the release of full budget details, and awaits a significant adjustment in both strategy and savings.

Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage — to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution …

By Andrew Carpenter and Ulrika Grufman

(For more information on this feature, see here.)

And this week’s in the weeds conceptual/theoretical articles on nuclear weapons and related issues include…

North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and the maintenance of the Songun system
Habib, B. 2011. North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and the maintenance of the Songun system, The Pacific Review, 24:1, March 2011. pp.43-64.

“Indeed, it is the North Korean regime’s long-term vulnerabilities – weak economy, agricultural inefficiency, energy shortages, rigid political system and ideological fragility – that make the argument against the regime’s willingness to denuclearise so persuasive.” (p.59)

Habib makes the case that North Korea is unlikely to ever abandon its nuclear weapons. Instead he argues that they are likely to continue modernizing their existing arsenal. The author outlines two main arguments for his conclusion. The first is that the North Korean nuclear weapons programme has been ongoing for decades and Pyongyang has never shown any great willingness to disarm. Secondly, the country’s status as a nuclear power gives them leverage in international negotiations which they would not otherwise have. Habib argues that this is not only needed to help the country’s broken economy, but this status is used by the regime as a nationalistic rallying symbol.

The Empire’s New Clothes: Overrating China
Coonen, S. 2011. The Empire’s New Clothes: Overrating China. Joint Forces Quarterly. 63. Fall 2011.  

“America should thus seek solutions and policies to the mutual benefit of its economic partners, of which China is arguably the most important.” (Fall 2011)

Coonen argues that China’s economy is not a threat to the United States. He examines the benefits for the United States in China’s continued economic growth, while highlighting the difficulties that China’s economy will face in the future.  Economics is not a zero sum game, and a strong Chinese economy can be beneficial for the United States.  Coonen claims that China’s ownership of a significant portion of the United States’ debt is not a cause for concern.  Even though Coonen points out that Chinese economic growth would be beneficial, he also tries to alleviate fears by showing that China is moving away from the free market system that has allowed it to grow rapidly, which will likely lead to China’s economy slowing down.  Coonen suggests that China is not an economic threat, and the United States should pursue cooperative policies that would benefit both countries.  

The Collapse of North Korea: Military Missions and Requirements
Bennett, B. & Lind, J. 2011. The Collapse of North Korea: Military Missions and Requirements. International Security.  36:2. Fall 2011. pp. 84-119.

“Based on fairly optimistic assumptions about how a collapse would occur, we estimate that 260,000–400,000 troops would be necessary to staff the missions described here.” (p. 118)

Bruce Bennett and Jennifer Lind analyze the military missions, and what forces would likely be required to complete them in the event of a North Korean regime collapse.  They estimate that between 260,000 and 400,000 troops would be required to complete military missions in North Korea.  While South Korea currently has the required troops to do this, they conclude that there should be regional cooperation among China, South Korea and the United States.  Finally Bennett and Lind suggest that plans should be made before there is an indication of a collapse.  South Korea should reach out to North Korean military commanders promising amnesty if they surrender their forces in event of a regime collapse.

The hypothetical program reductions cited by Secretary Panetta in his November 14 warning would hit nuclear forces harder than any other part of the U.S. defense posture. That’s a worrisome prospect given the fact that those forces were already program…

Last week I debuted as a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  I wrote my first column on the implications of the Supercommitee’s failure for U.S. nuclear weapons policy.  Here’s a taste: Fortunately, scaling back plan…