The approach of some vocal Republicans to the “New START” negotiations goes something like this: suggest a dozen different ways that a new arms control agreement with Russia could be detrimental to U.S. security without actually opposing a new arms control agreement with Russia.  That strategy continued last week…

On December 3, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution on New START which never opposes a new treaty.  True to form, however, the resolution calls on the President not to sign an agreement with Russia that could compromise our ability to deter China and other would-be nuclear powers; to provide Congress with reports on both negotiations with Russia and China’s nuclear forces; to complete the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) before signing an agreement; and to ensure that a new agreement does not constrain U.S. missile defenses.  

While the bill is unlikely to go anywhere legislatively (recall that the Senate, not the House, has jurisdiction over treaties), as The Cable’s Josh Rogin notes, it can play an important role on the level of narrative.  Ros-Lehtinen’s resolution is the latest in a long list of efforts on the part of some Republicans to define New START as bad for U.S. interests.  So far 57 Republicans have cosponsored Ros-Lehtinen’s bill. I’d like to see 57 Democrats (and Republicans) cosponsor separate House legislation that describes how a New START agreement will enhance U.S. security.

None of the arguments in the resolution are new, although this is the first time China has figured so prominently in the debate. We’ve provided rebuttals to them over at our START Resource Center.  Below are some detailed responses to the specific concerns raised in the resolution. The bottom line: Ros-Lehtinen shouldn’t worry; the Obama administration has her back.

1. To reiterate, the resolution never opposes a New START agreement. It could, but it does not.

2. The resolution asks that a New START agreement not jeopardize our deterrent vis-à-vis China.  This is puzzling.  Even after a New START agreement, the U.S. will still have at least 1,500 deployed strategic nuclear weapons (as will the Russians), plus many thousands more in reserve. In contrast, China has only 240 total weapons and only 25-40 missiles capable of striking the U.S., far from the U.S. total.  The resolution cites a U.S. intelligence estimate that the Chinese could have over 100 missiles capable of striking the U.S. 15 years from now.  First, it’s important to note that U.S. intelligence estimates have repeatedly overestimated the speed and content of China’s modernization programs.  Second, given the numbers being considered for New START, even if one assumes that China could have 100 such missiles by 2035, the U.S. would still have an overwhelming advantage.

3. The resolution calls on the President to provide Congress with reports on both negotiations with Russia and China’s nuclear forces.  Clearly a report on negotiations with Russia should be doable once they are completed, as should a report on China’s nuclear forces, although such estimates already exist.

4. Perhaps the most pointed demand made by the resolution is that the administration should complete the NPR before signing an agreement.  However, the Pentagon has repeatedly stated that it is satisfied that the NPR has sufficiently informed the negotiations. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9, Marine General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “We prioritized in the Nuclear Posture Review . . . the activities and the analysis that would be necessary to support the timelines associated with the START negotiations or the follow-on START negotiations. . . . I’m very comfortable that we prioritized that analysis at the front end in order to support these negotiations.”   The expiration of START I on December 5 and the close link between the New START negotiations and the NPR process mean that it is both necessary and prudent to try and negotiate a new Treaty by the end of the year without waiting for a finalized NPR.

5.  Finally, the resolution calls on the administration to protect U.S. missile defenses in a new agreement.  The Obama administration has already made it crystal clear that it will comply with this wish.  Presidents Obama and Medvedev have stated that New START will deal only with strategic offensive arms. The offense-defense link might be noted in the preamble of the new treaty, but the text of New START will not contain any formal or legal limitations on missile defenses.

UPDATE 6:35PM: Jeffrey Lewis and Max Bergmann offer their own takes.

Last month, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) sought to authenticate North Korea’s status as a nuclear weapon state by citing a recent assessment by Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen. KCNA reported that “the Federation of American Scientists of the United States has confirmed (North) Korea as a nuclear weapon state.” However, KCNA’s report was an oversimplification of the Norris-Kristensen assessment. Yesterday, the South Korean Yonhap News Agency disseminated Kristensen’s rebuttal to the KCNA report, though over a week after it had been made. Better late than never…

Norris and Kristensen did list North Korea as a state that possesses nuclear weapons. On the FAS Strategic Security Blog, Kristensen wrote: “It’s certainly curious that they would need our reaffirmation, but after two nuclear tests we feel it is safe to call North Korea a nuclear weapon state.” However, Kristensen added that KCNA omitted a “huge caveat.” The original assessment reads:

We are not aware of credible information on how North Korea has weaponized its nuclear weapons capability, much less where those weapons are stored. We also take note that a recent U.S. Air Force intelligence report did not list any of North Korea’s ballistic missiles as nuclear-capable.

Concluding his rebuttal to the abridged analysis by Pyongyang’s media monopoly, Kristensen wrote:

In other words, two experimental nuclear test explosions don’t make a nuclear arsenal. That requires deliverable nuclear weapons, which we haven’t seen any signs of yet.

A rebuttal to Kristensen’s rebuttal, in the form of a new KCNA report, is unlikely. Hopefully, a flying missile rebuttal will not come too soon either.

In a major foreign policy speech in April in Prague the President outlined an ambitious strategy in pursuit of the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The President also stated: “I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime.”

This caveat has both irked disarmament advocates who think that abolition should happen much more quickly and has given credence to naysayers who consider such an undertaking to be too difficult. Perhaps, as Johan Bergenäs noted in World Politics Review, older generations may be too cynical to embark on such a monumental task.

In an effort to involve the next generation in the cause of reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, the State Department has launched a campaign to facilitate the exchange of ideas between future leaders of the U.S. and Russia.

As part of this new campaign, the State department arranged and facilitated a November 12th discussion at Foggy Bottom between American and Russian students on a range of non-proliferation issues including geopolitical changes affecting nuclear deterrence, the potential expansion of the nuclear club, and diplomatic remedies to instances of non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime.

Efforts at engaging future leaders are critical to reaching the “mountain top” mentioned in the now-famous Wall Street Journal Op-ed authored by George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. In the article, the four senior statesmen compare nuclear disarmament to climbing a mountain. We cannot currently see the top; however, we know it is there and it is important to begin the climb.

Granted, this may be perceived as naïve by the many cynics among us, but cynicism is what needs to be overcome if abolition is going to be realized in our or anyone’s lifetime. As Joe Cirincione puts it

“Cynicism in all its forms is still pervasive in the political process.  Overcoming it will be our greatest challenge, for it can sap the will of officials, filling them with a fear of appearing weak or foolish, and demoralize proponents, who will shrink from commitment to an apparently hopeless cause.”

Frankly, it is time that our sense of urgency caught up with our destructive capabilities; it is time to begin the difficult task of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Christmas is almost here, and for those of you with endless hours of winter break free to sit in front of your computers (or children), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has you covered.  Beginning at 4:00 a.m. MST (6:00 a.m. EST) on Christmas Eve, Santa trackers will begin answering phones and replying to email on Santa’s progress.

NORAD even has a website where you can count down to Christmas and receive updates from the North Pole.  According to the website, “Santa’s elves have been busier than usual this year,” so you can visit each and every day to receive holiday updates and even watch him prepare his sleigh and reindeer before you track his every movement on Christmas Eve.

According to NORAD, the program began:

…on Dec. 24, 1955, after a phone call was made to the Continental Air Defense Command Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colo. The call was from a local youngster who dialed a misprinted telephone number in a local newspaper advertisement. The commander at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Colo. who answered the phone that night gave the youngster the information requested – the whereabouts of Santa. This began the tradition of tracking Santa… the NTS Operations Center will be occupied for 25 hours with over 1,200 volunteers on Christmas Eve, who will be receiving hundreds of thousands phone calls and emails from families around the world.

So don’t be a Scrooge, give NORAD a call on Christmas Eve.  Come on, it’s fun!

By Travis Sharp and Kirk Bansak

North Korea was randomly assigned today to what looks to be the “group of death” in next year’s World Cup in South Africa. In addition to North Korea, the group includes Brazil (ranked 2nd in the world), Portugal (5th), and the Ivory Coast (16th). Last month, the Telegraph reported that Kim Jong-Il has banned World Cup 2010 coverage on North Korean television except for victory highlights.

In other words, no World Cup on TV in the DPRK next year.

In contrast, the United States drew the much more manageable England (9th), Algeria (28th), and Slovenia (33rd). It may be worth checking FIFA’s bylaws to see if the United States can swap its preferable group placement in exchange for North Korean denuclearization. After all, as one wise guy tried to argue while we watched the draw at lunch, regular Americans don’t care about soccer anyway, right?

The head of one regular American is definitely going to explode soon.

NOH believes it is clear that President Obama is responsible for this fortuitous World Cup development. Clearly his diplomacy is making things easier internationally for the United States and more difficult for North Korea. Any assertion to the contrary is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally un-American.