by Kingston Reif Rep. Michael Turner’s (R-OH) love affair with nuclear weapons continues. His national security raison d’être appears to be to protect at all costs spending on an excessively large nuclear arsenal ill-suited to the current threat environment and oppose common sense, bipartisan steps such as the New START treaty that begin to put […]
FY 2013 Budget Stuff: Initial Nuclear Weapons Numbers
Now that budget day has come and gone, it’s time to sift through and try to digest all the numbers. Laicie got us going yesterday with her annual defense budget briefing book. Below I’ve put together a chart on the FY 2013 request for strategic nuclear replacement systems (click on the thumbnail for the full PDF). Stay tuned for more in the coming days and weeks.
On nukes there weren’t too many surprises.
The FY 2013 Pentagon budget does not make any cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal as future decisions about the size and structure of U.S. strategic forces will be determined by the administration’s ongoing secret review of nuclear deterrence requirements. The Pentagon has hinted that additional reductions are possible, but it remains to be seen how far-reaching they will be.
Though the big decisions about the future of the arsenal have yet to be made, as previously announced the Pentagon will delay the Ohio-Class ballistic missile submarine by two years, saving $4.3 billion from FY 2013 – FY 2017. The plans for a new long-range bomber are moving full steam ahead. Studies on a follow-on to the Minuteman III ICBM also appear to be progressing, as they received $11.6 million and a new line item in the budget.
On the NNSA side, the budget request provides $7.58 billion, an increase of $363 million over the FY 2012 enacted level but a reduction of $372 million below the projected level outlined in the Section 1251 report. As previously reported, the budget defers the new plutonium production facility at Los Alamos for five years, saving an estimated $1.8 billion over the next five years.
Due to the Budget Control Act, funding levels for weapons activities will not keep pace with the 1251 report. But the FY 2012 appropriation and the FY 2013 budget request provide major increases for nuclear weapons programs. By way of additional comparison, the FY 2013 request is a $710 million increase over the FY 2011 enacted level and an increase of $1.2 billion over the FY 2010 enacted level! NNSA will still be provided with more than enough money to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear warheads.
Of course if sequestration is implemented all bets are off and funding for nuclear modernization activities at the Pentagon and NNSA will take a big hit. As budget analyst Todd Harrison rightly observes, “The budget request and new strategic guidance are of little consequence until this uncertainty is resolved.”
Our message on all this remains the same: The U.S. should prioritize scarce dollars on the weapons we need for current threats and spend less on unaffordable nuclear programs with diminishing strategic relevance – with our without sequestration. The decision to delay the Ohio-class replacement program and defer the new plutonium facility at Los Alamos are good first steps, but there is ample room for more cuts.
BRAC: The Next Steps for the Administration and Congress
By Phil Coyle Defense Secretary Leon Panetta surprised many Pentagon observers when he announced on January 26, 2012, that he would pursue possibly two base realignment and closure rounds, one in 2013 and another in 2015, as part of his long-range strategy to further bring down DoD costs. Familiarly known as BRAC, the Pentagon last […]
North Korea Update: U.S. & DPRK to Hold Talks
There’s been talk for a while about North Korea requesting a bilateral meeting with the U.S. It’s now official the two sides will sit down next week in Beijing. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters today (February 13, 2012) that U.S. envoy on North Korea Glyn Davies and North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan will meet in Beijing on February 23rd.
It would be the third bilateral meeting of its kind since last summer with the objective on how to resume the stalled, six-party nuclear talks. Prior to Kim Jong-il’s death, the two sides had agreed in October 2011 that Pyongyang would suspend its uranium enrichment in return for food assistance ahead of the six-party talks, and hold follow-up talks on December 22, 2011. However, details including timing and logistics of the exchange apparently were not agreed upon last year, and the sudden death of Kim Jong-il (December 17) canceled the third round of talks.
Washington and Seoul have been demanding Pyongyang take sincere steps toward denuclearization before the resumption of six-party talks. Washington’s other precondition is progress in inter-Korean relations, which are currently anything but smooth.
The timing of the Beijing meeting is noteworthy as it comes just days before a series of annual, U.S.-South Korea joint military drills begin, starting with the Key Resolve exercise on February 27th, and lasting until April. Pyongyang has been highly sensitive to and denounced such drills as pretexts for an attack against the regime.
Preparations are also in full swing for the North Korean founder Kim Il-sung’s centennial in April and the opening its doors to becoming a “strong and prosperous nation.”
Perhaps the biggest question at this point is whether Pyongyang will return to two-way talks and implement the late Kim Jong-il’s instructions, or use it to help solidify the new Kim Jong-un regime, or both.
Five years ago today (February 13, 2007), the six parties agreed on initial actions they would take to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement, including shutting down the plutonium-producing Yongbyon facility in return for heavy fuel oil to meet the North’s energy needs. The six-party talks broke down in December 2008 over ways to verify Pyongyang’s nuclear inventory it submitted under a six-party agreement.
The Pentagon Budget: Fiscal 2013 Edition
Click here to see the whole Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Spending Request Briefing Book.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, which begins on October 1, 2012, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $525.4 billion. This represents a $5.1 billion, or approximately 1 percent, decrease from the FY12 base budget approved by Congress.
In addition, the Administration has requested $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to continue to fight the wars overseas. This is $26.6 billion decrease from the amount enacted last year, $115.1 billion, and brings the FY13 defense budget request to a total of $613.9 billion.
These numbers do not include nuclear weapons related spending in the Department of Energy (DOE) or other defense related funding. In addition to an initial $613.9 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested approximately $17.7 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7.2 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities.
This brings total Pentagon defense related spending to approximately $639 billion, a nominal decrease of about $30.7 billion below FY12, largely due to savings from the war in Afghanistan and the end of the war in Iraq.