By Amanda Waldron
International Business Times Cites Ed Levine’s Analysis of Kirk-Menendez Bill
How the U.S. Midterms Could Affect the Future of Iran Nuclear Talks By Erin Banco November 4, 2014 The premise of the bill is that Iranian sanctions can be averted only if the Obama administration provides specific certifications every 30 days and if Iran implements the terms of the so-called Joint Plan Of Action. The […]
John Isaacs Discusses Missile Defense in Interview with WAFF-TV (AL)
October 30, 2014 Watch John Isaacs discuss the shortfalls of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) anti-ballistic missile system in an interview with WAFF-TV, a Huntsville, Alabama station. Huntsville is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command. Of the GMD, Isaacs says, “Despite many many billions of […]
Introducing our New Associate Director of Development
Introducing Stephanie Somerman, our newest addition to the Center staff who joins the team as the new Associate Director of Development. Meet Stephanie:
While working for two years on the Pentagon Budget Campaign, a project of the Center/Council, and closely with Angela on the Campaign’s steering committee, I am eager to now split my time, lending a hand to the Center/Council development team. I have sat just down the hall from most of the staff and work closely with Laicie and John on the Pentagon spending issue. I am looking forward to diving deeper into all areas the Center/Council work on and finding innovative ways to have an impact in the larger peace and security community. This includes seeking out new sources of funding and different angles we can take, building on the strong foundation of advocacy and policy the Center/Council have built over the past half a century. Although double duty is tough, I am glad to be able continue to support the Pentagon Budget Campaign coalition in addition to this new role.
I arrived in DC a little over two years ago after 27 months as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ukraine. Living in southern Ukraine, I worked with two small NGOs to further develop their organizational capacity including writing grants, project design and management plus strategic planning. My background is in non-profit management with a focus on policy/advocacy based non-profits. As an alumnus of the University of Michigan and Ford School of Public Policy where I received my Masters in Public Policy, I also ran a small non-profit research firm at the University where I wrote and implemented with a team of students large scale grant projects from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Census Bureau. I am also a proud founding member of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network at the University of Michigan where I worked with my fellow students to write and advocate for student policy solutions to local and federal problems.
With a rich experience in leading, organizing and developing non-profits, I am happy to tackle new challenges. I hope to take this opportunity to grow my development and operational skills further and build toward a more peaceful national security strategy.
The Unaffordable Arsenal
Top government officials are in agreement that current plans to rebuild our nuclear arsenal (to the price tag of at least $355 billion over the next decade and up to $1 trillion over the next 30 years) are overly ambitious and likely unaffordable. Add in a defense budget that’s already stretched thin, always-looming budget caps and sequestration, new international security challenges like Russian expansion in Ukraine, terrorist expansion in Iraq and Syria, and the Ebola virus in Africa, and it’s safe to say the US budget is burning its ‘defense candle’ at both ends.
The Arms Control Association (ACA) has released a report on just this issue, urging the “executive branch, Congress, and the American public to rethink current plans to rebuild U.S. nuclear forces in the years ahead.” The nuclear shopping list is a long one: new ballistic submarines, new nuclear-capable bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, a new air-launched cruise missile, and an upgrade to five nuclear warhead types. By paring down that list, ACA has highlighted some commonsense solutions to save roughly $70 billion dollars in the next decade. A summary of ACA’s recommendations follows.
Strategic Submarines – SSBN(X): Save $16 billion/10 years
A 2013 report by the CBO analyzed the option of reducing the SSBN(X) force to 8 boats. Under this scenario, the Navy would still have a robust deterrent and be able to deploy the maximum number of warheads at sea, consistent with the New START treaty.
Long-Range Bombers – LRSB: Save $32 billion/10 years
Because the current US bomber fleet will operate into the 2040s-50s, there is no urgency for a renovation. By delaying the LRSB until the mid-2020s, the USAF can free up $32 billion dollars for other projects that have more urgent funding needs.
Air-Launched Cruise Missile – ALCM: Save $3 billion/10 years
The recently rebuilt gravity bomb (B61-12) gives our current bombing fleet the capability to drop nuclear weapons, drawing the need for a new air-launched cruise missile into question. Not only is this weapon unnecessary, as our submarines are capable of launching a nuclear ballistic missile, but it would serve as an effective bargaining chip on the international stage. Discontinuing our ALCMs as part of a global ban on nuclear-armed cruise missiles would eliminate the growing threat of a Chinese or Pakistani cruise missile while simultaneously saving at least $3 billion dollars in development and procurement costs.
B61 Life Extension Program – LEP: Save $4 billion/10 years
The B61 Life Extension Program is designed to extend the lives of 400 gravity bombs for tactical (front lines) and strategic (reserves) purposes. The two most costly portions of the program are a consolidation plan of four versions of the bomb into one and the refurbishment of some of the nuclear components. This program has faced budget pressures in Congress and would be better served by scaling back the program to update our strategic reserve bombs while allowing our tactical bombs in Europe to age out gracefully. This or other reductions to the program, such as discontinuing the 4-in-1 modification plans for the bomb, will allow for cost savings up to 4 billion dollars over the next decade.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles – ICBMS: $16 billion/10 years
The Air Force’s 450 ICBMs are scheduled for maintenance to ensure their reliability through 2030. The Air Force is expected to decide by 2016 whether they will employ incremental modernization of the missiles, or scrap the current design and create new ones. A 2014 RAND study sponsored by the Air Force to analyze options for the ICBM determined that incremental modernization would both meet the US’s nuclear deterrent needs and be the most cost-effective. The USAF would save at least $16 billion dollars by forgoing a new missile and an additional $84-$219 billion (not included in above projections) by forgoing potential mobile-basing options which have been considered ineffective since the 1980’s.
These options illustrate ways to safely trim the bloated nuclear budget while maintaining our nuclear deterrent. This creates a win-win scenario for the Department of Defense, which will preserve the nuclear arsenal from uncontrolled cuts as a result of an overly ambitious budget and secure funding for its conventional forces. In a world where nuclear exchanges are most commonly associated with global destruction, these nuclear exchanges to the budget are both sensible and necessary.
Greg Terryn is a Scoville Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.