Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Muammar Qaddafi has been killed and his forty-two year dictatorship in Libya is over.

After seizing power in Libya by a military coup, Qaddafi renounced the Libyan constitution and upheld his rule through a combination of force and admiration from his cult-like following.  He amassed wealth with Libya’s oil, waged wars with neighboring states and was behind the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1994 that killed 270 people, including 189 Americans.  

When Libyans began to call for the ouster of Qaddafi seven months ago and NATO jets joined their campaign, it was unclear how this revolution would end.  In the nuclear non-proliferation community, however, there was a collective sigh of relief because Libya had given up its nuclear weapons program in2004.  Qaddafi could not use them against his people in revolt.

Under an agreement with the U.S. and U.K. that promised normalized relations with Libya, Qaddafi relinquished his entire nuclear weapons program.  The U.S. and U.K. dismantled, destroyed and airlifted out key components and documents on the program, Russia removed highly enriched uranium that it had supplied and the International Atomic Energy Agency began verification of nuclear sites.  Qaddafi did not have the nuclear option thanks to the tireless work of U.S. diplomacy and international non-proliferation organizations.

In Qaddafi’s death, the rebels achieved the goal that unified them, but the future is unclear.  Libya will face great challenges to cement a traditionally divided society, create a state with institutions and peacefully transition power.  Even if there is post-Qaddafi chaos, however, there is no opportunity to use nuclear weapons and no danger of the loss or theft of the remnants of the nuclear program.  

American military involvement in Libya through NATO was and remains controversial, particularly because the President declined to request authorization from Congress. Recently, the Administration sent another 100 soldiers to Uganda to defeat a powerful, violent rebel army.  And the neo-conservatives remain disappointed that the United States was not more aggressive militarily in protecting human rights.

However, we give thanks for the end of Qaddafi’s rule, the closure of a nuclear weapons program and continue to support the will of the Libyan people.

As Nick Roth and Ulrika Grufman documented last week, House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) recently sent a letter signed by the Republican members of the Subcommittee to Senate appropriators asking that they fully fund the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 request for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) weapons activities account.  Turner also sent a letter to the Supercommittee with the same message.  

Nick and Ulrika have already done a neat and clean job of rebutting many of Turner’s arguments.  One area that deserves further exploration, however, is the issue of where exactly money to offset reductions in weapons funding would come from.  

I examine this question in a new article over at the mothership.  Here’s the bottom line:

Given the current budget situation, the unintended consequence of seeking more money for weapons activities is that every additional dollar that is added to this account could put the budget for vital nuclear terrorism prevention and nonproliferation programs at risk. Such a result would be reckless and undermine U.S. security.

On Thursday, October 20 the San Antonio Express ran my Op-Ed calling on the Super Committee and Congress to make real changes in government spending, read- the defense budget. You can find it here. Below is an excerpt: Both the “supercommittee,” a gr…