In the latest issue of International Security, defense analyst Bruce Sugden’s article, “Speed Kills: Analyzing the Deployment of Conventional Ballistic Missiles,” weighs the pros and cons of deploying conventional ballistic missiles (CBMs) in support of the Prompt Global Strike mission.

Prompt Global Strike is an initiative that seeks to address rapidly emerging threats with non-nuclear means. Under both the ground- and sea-based iterations of the proposal, a conventional warhead would be mated to a long-range missile normally equipped with a nuclear payload. These conventionally-armed long-range missiles could then be used to engage time-sensitive targets globally, such as high-value terrorist encampments. CBMs based in the continental United States could strike an hour after the decision was made to launch, and would have a 15 minute advantage if forward-deployed on land or at sea.

Sugden evaluates the merits of short term deployment of CBMs versus both unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and manned aircraft based on nine attributes. He concludes that CBMs are superior in the short term in terms of prompt response (speed), combat radius, accuracy, and throw weight.

There are several limitations to deploying CBMs, however. The satellite technology used to identify targets is designed to monitor changes overtime, such as the movements of large military installations. The satellites are less useful for tracking small mobile targets like small groups of individuals. CBMs would also have to be paired with more persistent and multi-faceted surveillance such as localized human and aircraft reconnaissance. Thus, CBM prompt response and accuracy are contingent upon continued investment in, and reliance upon, multiple sources of quality ISR.

Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, along with STRATCOM chief Gen. Kevin Chilton, have advocated deploying CBMs. But opponents express legitimate reservations. There is a real danger of a nuclear state confusing a CBM with a nuclear-armed missile and quickly launching a retaliatory response in order to avoid losing their weapons in what they believe is an incoming counterforce strike (the “use ‘em or lose ‘em” problem). Neither Russia nor China currently has the capability to distinguish between non-nuclear and nuclear missiles in the event of a fly-over, particularly in Russia’s case with its dilapidated radar infrastructure.

Nevertheless, Sugden recommends continued R&D and near-term (by 2013) deployment of the Navy’s conventional Trident missile.

For an comprehensive critique of Prompt Global Strike and the Conventional Trident Modernization program, see Steve Andreasen’s 2006 ACT article.

Last week I commented on Walter Pincus’ story on FOGBANK and the Kyl amendment(s).  Via Frank Munger, I see that NNSA has released a FAQ on FOGBANK (the full text is pasted below the jump).  The key takeaway: All issues involving Fogbank prod…

The issue of extended deterrence has been in the news a lot in the past few weeks.  First, via GSN’s Martin Matishak, at last week’s STRATCOM Deterrence Symposium Brad Roberts, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, stated:

there will be an increased emphasis [in the Nuclear Posture Review] on extended deterrence and the assurance of allies….”The concern about tipping points is rising,” Roberts said, noting that the anxieties of partner nations in East Asia have “sharpened” as a result of North Korea’s two nuclear tests and the modernization of the Chinese military’s nuclear capabilities.

 And yesterday, on the 64th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb drop on Hiroshima, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso reiterated his nation’s commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons and global nuclear disarmament, while at the same time warning that he considers nuclear abolition to be “unimaginable”.  Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of Japan’s primary opposition party took an even stronger pro-disarmament line, noting that “Realizing a nuclear-free world as called for by U.S. President [Barack] Obama is exactly the moral mission of our country as the only atomic-bombed state.”  Japan has long been considered to be the most important beneficiary of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

Those who are wary about reducing the role and size of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy are increasingly pointing to the challenges associated with protecting and reassuring allies in an age of Russian aggression, Chinese military modernization, and North Korean and Iranian provocation as a reason why we must be very cautious about further nuclear cuts with Russia, the CTBT, etc.

For example, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States raised a lot of eyebrows in the emphasis it placed on extended deterrence.  Take, for example, this graf from the executive summary:

For the deterrence of attacks by regional aggressors and even China, the force structure requirements are relatively modest. The focus on Russia is not because the United States and Russia are enemies; they are not. No one seriously contemplates a direct Russian attack on the United States. Some U.S. allies located closer to Russia, however, are fearful of Russia and its tactical nuclear forces. The imbalance in non-strategic nuclear weapons, which greatly favors Russia, is of rising concern and an illustration of the new challenges of strategic stability as reductions in strategic weapons proceed. The need to reassure U.S. allies and also to hedge against a possible turn for the worse in Russia (or China) points to the fact that the U.S. nuclear posture must be designed to address a very broad set of U.S. objectives, including not just deterrence of enemies in time of crisis and war but also assurance of our allies and dissuasion of potential adversaries. Indeed, the assurance function of the force is as important as ever.[emphasis mine].

Though it didn’t explicitly say so, the Commission implies that extended deterrence is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor driving the size and characteristics of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Below the jump I outline some reasons to avoid overstating the value of extended deterrence.  For more go read Jeffrey and Hans.

1. So long as U.S. allies could fall victim to nuclear attack, the U.S. should retain nuclear weapons to deter such an attack.  However, allied concerns about the state of the U.S. nuclear umbrella should not be taken to mean that they oppose any or even significant changes to U.S. nuclear posture.  Rather, key allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Turkey don’t want to be surprised by changes to U.S. strategic posture.  They want to be consulted well ahead of time.

2. There is much more to assuring allies than the nuclear component of extended deterrence.  For example, a critical factor in an ally’s confidence in the credibility of extended deterrence is its confidence in the strength of its political relationship with the United States.  If political relations fray then the credibility of the U.S. extended deterrent will be perceived to be weak, no matter what type of or how many nuclear weapons the United States possesses.  Nuclear weapons are often relied on as a crutch to avoid the hard choices and difficult negotiations with allies that changes in U.S. nuclear posture would require.

3. As the Carnegie Endowment’s George Perkovich has noted, there has never been a halcyon day of extended deterrence.  On the one hand, some U.S. allies have always feared that the U.S. might bungle its way into a nuclear war.  Conversely, there has always been a tension between U.S. alliance commitments and the fears on the part of allies that the U.S. might abandon them.  These tensions, however, have not become more pronounced than they were during the Cold War.

In my post last week on the Kyl Amendment, I noted that the Obama administration needs to more forcefully make the affirmative case for the START follow-on treaty, with particular emphasis on (1) why a new arms control treaty with Russia will increases U.S. security and (2) rebutting arguments made by skeptics of the START follow-on process.

As if right on cue, newly-appointed Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher did just that in her remarks at the STRATCOM Deterrence Symposium on July 30 in Omaha, Nebraska.  I’ve excerpted her comments on START from her full remarks below the jump.  My only (minor) qualm is that I would have led with how the new treaty “will enhance our national security and provide for an effective deterrent.”  Instead, Tauscher begins by stating that the new treaty ” is the beginning of a new narrative for the post-Cold War generation that need not be paralyzed by the threat of nuclear war and it is a down payment for deeper reductions in the future.”  But overall it was an excellent case for the START follow-on treaty.

Update 8/6: John argues that while Tauscher’s remarks were effective in rebutting criticisms of the START follow-on process, they were largely silent on why nuclear reductions are important and would benefit U.S. security. I think that’s a fair point, though given that this was the first real effort on the part of a high-ranking administration official to make the case for the agreement, this was still a strong initial step.

Recent rumors about Iran’s “close ties” with Latin America have caused Washington to shake in its alarmist boots. In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of Iranian “subversive activity”  in the region. “The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added in May. “And you can only imagine what that’s for.”

To date, there is still no sign of the embassy in Nicaragua despite Clinton’s breathless warning. But additional warnings have come from elsewhere.

In May, a secret Israeli government report was leaked that implicated Venezuela and Bolivia in the sale of uranium to Iran. Hugo Chavez has not found time in his weekly 12-hour broadcast “Alo Presidente” to refute the accusation. The Evo Morales camp in Bolivia denied it, though Morales did raise eyebrows after announcing a pending low-interest $280 million loan offer from Iran.

In July, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman visited Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and Argentina to address Israeli concerns over uranium sales and terrorist activities throughout the continent. His concerns were not reciprocated in Brazil or Colombia. Brazilian President Lula said little about Iran’s program, noting only that he hoped for “every state to sign the NPT” and for the Middle East to be a region “free of nuclear weapons.”

Though it severely undercuts the international non-proliferation regime to play fast and loose with the nuclear fuel cycle, the NPT is not entirely proliferation-proof. It is an imperfect document that is only as strong as the collective will of its signatories. The NPT has been circumvented and ignored before. In 1980, France aided Iraq’s nuclear program by selling it a research reactor and 165 lbs of highly enriched uranium.

Many non-nuclear weapons states resent that they must accept far tougher restrictions on their civilian nuclear activities than the nuclear weapons states. Arguably, Venezuela and Bolivia are acting within the bounds of the treaty, and Iran is just cashing in on its sovereign right to pursue “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” as guaranteed in Article IV of the NPT.

Links between Iran and alienated, leftist South American regimes no doubt leave U.S. officials with images of Contras and coups dancing in their heads. Yet if the United States wants to maintain control over proliferation not curtailed by the NPT, it should address the root causes through sustained dialog with Iran and its alleged suppliers in both bilateral and multilateral settings. Ominous public warnings by American policymakers will do little to bring the truth to light or resolve the situation diplomatically.