I’ve been doing some reading on missile defense over the past few days and came across this quote from Sen. Sessions at an April 13 Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the FY 2012 missile defense budget:

“The Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense establishes a global framework for regional uncertainties. If executed correctly and on time, it will represent a good approach that is both relocatable and scalable. According to the BMD review, the fourth phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach and SM–3 Block IIB will improve the defense of the homeland. As we are all aware, this layered protection could have come earlier with the prior plan that we had from the prior administration. However, I agree that defending both Europe and the U.S. from Iran with only ten interceptors was not sufficient—was not going to provide the inventory necessary to deter Iranian aggression.”

This struck me as surprising, since I recall Sen. Sessions being a little more hostile to the administration’s plans for European missile defense when the Phased Adaptive Approach was first announced in September 2009.  Sure enough, here’s what Sen. Sessions had to say at the time:

“Today, on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland, President Obama has signaled to our European allies that the United States will suddenly and inexplicably walk away from our commitment, turning our back on our allies in an apparent effort to appease Russia. This callous and cavalier decision leaves our friends out on a limb, high and dry.”

I think this demonstrates two things: 1) Sen. Sessions clearly didn’t have the facts back in September 2009 and 2) the bipartisan support for the Phased Adaptive Approach is rather strong.

Just two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reported that Syria had likely built a nuclear reactor on the site bombed by Israel in 2007 (see Laicie’s post), Syria has promised full compliance with any and all future IAEA investigations and inspections.  

On a side note, Syrian President Assad today also offered general amnesty to all “political” prisoners, i.e. protesters, in an attempt to quell the protests that military force has been unable to stop for over ten weeks.  1,000 people have been killed by Syrian forces.

It appears that the Syrian government is hard at work to renovate its public image.  

The U.S. has put forth a draft resolution to the IAEA governing board referring Syria to the U.N. for non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The vote is scheduled for June 6 and could result in punitive action against Damascus, as occurred with Iran.  By reporting Syria, the U.S. may be hoping to gain has the added benefit of reigniting the conversation about Iran’s NPT transgressions, thereby strengthening support for tougher sanctions on Iran.

Syria’s sudden interest in making nice after having stonewalled inspectors since 2008 is likely to stall any attempts to penalize the country and could offer Damascus more time to destroy what evidence is left at the reactor site.   Another concern is that Syria’s sudden agreeableness could also “dilute efforts to end Syria’s bloody crackdown on its grass-roots pro-democracy movement.”

The IAEA is a slow moving body and inspections might not resume immediately, but soon enough we shall see if President Assad and his Ba’athist party have any interest in real change or if it is just PR.

As we noted last week, the White House threatened to veto the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act if it included two provisions offered by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) in Committee that would delay implementation of the New START treaty and constr…

As the House debates the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act today and tomorrow, it will take up the following amendments on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation policy (for our earlier analysis on the nuclear policy provisions in the House version of the defense bill see, here, here, and here):

#64 – Missile defense – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – cuts the additional $100 million added by the Committee for the ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) system (National Missile Defense) based in Alaska and California.

#88 – Limitation on nuclear force reductions – Michael Turner (R-OH) Clarifies the intent of section 1055 by explicitly allowing activities determined by the Secretary of Defense to be necessary to ensure the continued safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

#89 – Tactical Nuclear Weapons – Turner (R-OH) Would create an additional exception allowing for the reductions, withdrawals, or consolidations of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, when made pursuant to either a Treaty or authorized by an Act of Congress.

#135 – Non-proliferation funding – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – increases funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (Department of Energy non-proliferation funding) by $20 million with an offsetting cut elsewhere.

#137 – Russian nuclear forces – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – requires a report on Russia’s nuclear forces.

All of these amendments save for Sanchez’s amendment to cut $100 million from GMD will be considered “en bloc.”  An en bloc amendment consists of a group of several amendments.  They are supported by the majority and minority and will be uncontroversial.  

Sanchez’s amendment on GMD, however, will be controversial…  

Two weeks ago he House Armed Services Committee agreed to an increase of $100 million for GMD, which is designed to protect the continental U.S. from a limited missile attack from a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea. Rep. Sanchez offered an amendment to eliminate the increase and instead add $100 million to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account. However, Rep. 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.

Sanchez is offering her amendment again on the floor, although this time the $100 million saved by the cut will go to debt reduction rather than another program.

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.”  In other words, an additional $100 million for GMD is money Gen. O’Reilly doesn’t need or want. 
• Gen. O’Reilly also stated that reductions in the out-year budget requests for GMD reflect a transition from investment in construction and infrastructure to work on interceptors and flight tests as well as the achievement of operating efficiencies.  “We have not reduced what we intended to accomplish even though there’s 2.4 billion (dollars) less in the MDA budget,” he said.
• As Center Chairman Lt. Gen. Robert Gard wrote in a recent analysis, in his 2010 report, the director of the Department of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation office stated that ground and computer tests “suggest” that the Ground-Based Mid-Course system can provide a capability to defend the U.S. against a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles with “uncomplicated emerging threat warheads”, meaning with no or very simple decoys or other counter-measures. Yet in a 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, the U.S. National Intelligence Council stated: “We assess that countries developing ballistic missiles,” including North Korea and Iran, “would also develop various responses to U.S. theatre and national defenses … by the time they flight test their missiles.”  The system has yet to be tested against operationally realistic threats that use decoys or countermeasures that could defeat the system and there are no near term plans to do so.  

UPDATE, 5/25, 11:00 PM: Rep. Sanchez’s amendment on GMD came up for debate at about 10:45 PM just before the debate on the defense bill adjourned for the day. Reps. Sanchez, Andrews, and Smith (the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee) hammered the rationale for adding an additional $100 million for national missile defense, noting that Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly testified to Congress earlier this year that he didn’t need or want additional money for GMD because MDA has altered its plans until they solve the problem that caused the most recent test failure. Rep. Sanchez asked for a roll call vote on the amendment, which will take place tomorrow.

UPDATE, 5/26, 1:50 PM: The amendment failed 184-234. 15 Republicans voted for the amendment, 16 Democrats voted against it. More or less a party line vote.