The United States and South Korea announced a series of joint naval exercises in the Pacific theater on Tuesday, designed to show force and resolve against a stubborn North Korea.  The first of the exercises will begin Sunday and will include ships, aircraft, sailors, and airmen (for a total of about 8,000 personnel) from both the US and Republic of Korea navy and air force.

The display is a direct response to and a continuation of the crisis begun when the South Korean frigate Cheonan was sunk off the coast of the Korean Peninsula on March 26.  An international investigation team concluded that the Cheonan was hit by a torpedo launched from a North Korean submarine, a charge North Korea and its ally, China, have denied.

The statement said that the exercises “are designed to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behavior must stop.”  They will occur in both the East and West Seas, known to Americans as Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.

The military presence is quite large, with over a hundred aircraft and 20 ships and submarines, including the American aircraft carrier the USS George Washington.

Admiral Robert F. Willard characterized the first exercise, code-named Invincible Spirit, as “a show of force intended to send a signal to North Korea with regard to what has occurred post-Cheonan and is intended also to signal the region the resolve of this alliance and our commitment to one another and the scope and scale of our ability to operate together.”

Willard said this was only the first (and not necessarily largest) in a series of demonstrations taking place over the coming months.  Should North Korean behavior change, the exercises can be increased or decreased in intensity.

China has made its displeasure over these events known (EDIT: very well known), having just completed its own exercises in the area.  This New York Times article has a good description of their reaction.

Click here for the transcript of Willard’s remarks to the press.

The already strong bipartisan support for New START just got a little stronger.  On Monday, the American Security Project launched the “Consensus for American Security,” a group of more than 30 senior former military and national security leaders who support the New START treaty and other common sense measures to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation.

The bipartisan initiative includes former Senators Gary Hart (D-CO) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), former STRATCOM Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff Gen. Arlen “Dirk” Jameson (USAF, ret.), former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral WIlliam Owens (USN, ret.), and the Center’s very own Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.).

Below are some excellent quotes from Consensus members who participated in Monday’s conference call launching the project (see here and here for good summaries of the call)…

Senator Chuck Hagel:

I think our greatest responsibility, our being certainly the United States and all of our allies and all governments and peoples of the world, is to work together to build a new global security framework, and the START Treaty in my opinion is part of that.

We all know that arms control treaties and any treaties are not perfect, they are imperfect documents, they are imperfect institutions and structures. But what motivates the treaty itself and why it is important that we have these kinds of structures and institutions to work within is because they do allow us to work within a framework of responsible, in this case, arms reduction.

…if this would fail, if this START Treaty would fail in the Senate, in my opinion it would be a devastating blow to future efforts in the world to try to harness some discipline and build, what I talked about earlier, a new 21st century framework to deal with these issues that are becoming more and more complicated.

General Dirk Jameson:

There are many reasons why ratifying New START Treaty without delay is important. As both senators said, it continues a critical process begun almost 50 years ago to bring stability, transparency, enhanced security and significant reductions to the two nuclear arsenals that hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The new treaty picks up where the expired start left off by mandating reductions in the strategic nuclear warheads each country may deploy.

The new treaty requires extensive verification monitoring and information exchanges between the U.S. and Russia. This means reduced risk of accident, miscalculation or theft.

Without the New START agreement we would be poorly equipped to monitor what Russia is doing with the nuclear arsenal that in the past has been poorly guarded and poorly maintained. Risk of weapons or a nuclear material falling into the wrong hands is greater without the new treaty.

There are many other reasons to ratify the new treaty but one of perhaps greatest importance is that it will allow the U.S. to lead in pursuing greater cooperation and progress from our allies and other nations around the world.

Admiral Bill Owens:

So I am totally convinced that the provisions of the New START Treaty are in the best interests of our country. I think that many thoughtful military leaders who have, like the General and I, spent a lot of our time in nuclear positions along the way, are of a similar mind, and I just strongly encourage our Senate to take a bipartisan approach, pass this important legislation, and show the world that we truly are the leaders that they expect us to be.

The directors of Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories appeared yesterday in front of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, testifying that the New START Treaty would not prevent the labs from ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The directors head the three labs that carry out the NNSA’s (National Nuclear Security Administration) stockpile stewardship program. The three directors were joined by Dr. Roy Schwitters, the Chairman of the JASON Defense Advisory Group, at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING

At the morning hearing – the Armed Services Committee’s second on the treaty – all four witnesses stated that the labs retained sufficient authority and flexibility to carry out their stewardship missions under the terms of the New START treaty and Obama administration Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Moreover, in the Q&A, the four witnesses emphasized the consequences of a failure to ratify the treaty on the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, arguing that discord in Washington inhibits the labs’ ability to attract and retain top talent. Dr. Miller, the director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, put it most clearly, stating: “having an agreed upon long-term vision for the future of the nuclear weapons stockpile is very important to the stability and engagement of the workforce.”

The few moments of contention centered on two issues: the Obama administration’s NPR and FY2011 budget. The Obama NPR gives a “strong preference to refurbishment or reuse,” rather than replacement, in warhead life extension programs. In criticizing the NPR, Senator McCain referenced a May 2010 letter, signed by 10 former national lab directors, which expressed concern about this policy in the NPR. All four witnesses, however, maintained that the NPR would not impede stockpile stewardship or life extension programs:

ANASTASIO (Los Alamos): “It is certainly true that there are restrictions in the NPR but I still believe that it is very clear that we have both the authority and responsibility to explore on a case by case basis what’s the best technical approach on each system to extend its life into the future.”

MILLER (Lawrence Livermore): “I believe that the concern expressed by the former lab directors is obviously legitimate…[however] I believe that the situation we have is a workable one.”

The four witnesses also stressed the need for a renewed and sustained financial commitment to the U.S. nuclear complex. The directors pointed out that prior to this year, funding for the NNSA has fallen each year since 2006.  Senator Inhofe (R-OK) seized on this comment as an opportunity to criticize the Obama administration’s FY2011 budget, arguing that the funds in the 2011 budget fell short of what was requested by the NNSA. Senator Reed (D-RI) quickly pointed out that the FY2011 budget’s allocation to NNSA is a 13% increase over the previous year’s budget, and the lab directors spoke highly of the budget, with Dr. Miller praising it as a “step in the right direction” and Dr. Anastasio arguing it showed a “strong commitment” to the nuclear stockpile.

FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING

Directors Anastasio, Miller, and Hommert reiterated their views on the treaty in an afternoon hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the Q&A, discussion focused on the Obama administration’s 10-year Funding Plan. The directors praised the plan for its renewed financial commitment to the nuclear complex but also asserted that this focus would need to be maintained by future administrations and congresses.

MILLER: “Given the recent trends, I can’t stress how positive a step [the budget is.]”

ANASTASIO: “The 2011 budget submission shows a strong commitment on the part of the administration…[but] in the out years, we need to find ways to sustain our focus and commitment.”

Because the 10-year Plan pushes much of the funding increases into the out years (2016 and after), senators on both sides of the aisle emphasized the need for Washington to stick to the plan in the long run.

Finally, props to Senator Inhofe for managing to attend one of yesterday’s hearings (he sits on both committees, but 50% attendance is still a major improvement). In case you missed ourearlier post, Sen. Inhofe has a lousy attendance record at the New START hearings, noting that he doesn’t like to show up to hearings that include witnesses who support the treaty.  Apparently Sen. Inhofe’s knows better than Secretary of Defense Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen, STRATCOM Commander Gen. Chilton, and countless others.

All too often, defense programs consume resources like a fountain consumes water in a public park—always flowing regardless of cost or necessity.  Programs with no clear use running billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule remain fiendishly difficult to kill.  It is this unfortunate reality that made the July 13 hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management so refreshing.

Department of Defense officials emphatically pressed lawmakers to cease production of any more C-17 cargo planes, saying they were neither requested nor required.  Indeed, they said, the current capabilities of our strategic airlift fleet exceed the military’s present-day needs as well as worst-case scenario projections.  Purchasing additional C-17 aircraft would run contrary to Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ goal of saving $100 billion over the next five years and would necessitate cutbacks in other DoD programs.

(More after the jump)

The U.S. strategic airlift fleet consists of C-5, C-17, and C-130 aircraft, including 223 C-17s and 111 C-5s, providing a capacity of 35.9 million ton-miles per day.  Air Force Maj. General Susan Y. Desjardins, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Mike McCord, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Alan F. Estevez all testified that according to the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016 (MCRS-16) conducted by DoD, the greatest airlift demand under extreme cases would be no more than 32.7 mtm/d.

The witnesses repeatedly stressed this point, as well as echoing Chairman Tom Carper’s (D-DE) statement that the military has not requested any more C-17s since 2007.  Despite this, Congress has purchased 43 additional planes since that time.  Senator John McCain pointed out that this amounted to $9 billion in direct spending, as well as billions more in support, training, maintenance, and other recurring costs associated with increased aircraft supply.

In addition, 22 of the lowest-performing C-5s are to be retired, saving money on their associated upkeep costs.  Simultaneously, the remaining C-5s are scheduled to be upgraded with new engines and other systems, prolonging their service life and improving their reliability.  When asked if it would make sense to continue retiring C-5s in favor of new C-17s, McCord said this would be a waste of money.  Carper noted that for the cost of one new C-17, two C-5s can be upgraded, each of which can carry twice as much cargo and fly twice as far as a new C-17 while remaining in service for another 30-40 years.

So far Congress’ appropriations for FY 2011 contain no funding for additional C-17 aircraft, and Secretary Gates has recommended that President Obama veto any bill containing spending on them.  “If you’re in a hole,” said Carper, “stop digging.”