On the evening of November 18th, the arms control community came together to recognize members of Congress who have demonstrated superior support for common sense nuclear weapons policies. On behalf of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation …
Defense Secretary Hagel Needs to Consult Senator Hagel More Often
In a press conference last Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced his commitment to revamping America’s nuclear weapons program after findings from two separate reviews revealed institutional failures such as weak leadership, antiquated and sparse equipment and exceptionally low morale.
“The internal and external reviews I ordered show that consistent lack of investment and support for nuclear forces of far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses,” said Hagel. He also pointed to the existence of systematic problems such as a culture of over and inadequate inspection, poor communication and disconnect between DoD and service leadership.
An example of the derelict state of the nuclear program is a lack of what the Department of Defense Report calls “mission ownership.” There appears to be a disparity in passion and dedication to the nuclear deterrent mission among the service men and women performing the day-to-day mission and the higher-ups in the Department of Defense. According to the report, “[they] are well aware of the public declarations by former (and, occasionally, current) senior national security leaders and others who question or deny the continuing relevance of the nuclear forces or segments of the nuclear forces.”
Even the men and women running the show are unenthused about the triad.
Hagel’s vision for an improved U.S. nuclear program includes a 10 percent increase in Pentagon nuclear spending over the next five years. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, the Pentagon spends between $15 billion and $16 billion dollars on nuclear programs each year; 10% over five years is at least an increase of $7.5 billion dollars.
Hagel also highlighted the Defense Department’s commitment to the President’s policy to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons on our nation’s security strategy.”
Hagel, however, went beyond his brief in saying that America’s nuclear weapons program is the “DoD’s highest priority mission.” In actuality, nuclear weapons serve one purpose only: to deter a nuclear attack on the U.S. and our allies.
Nuclear weapons are irrelevant to top U.S. security issues. Are nuclear weapons relevant to the ISIL threat in Iraq and Syria? Nope. How about in winding down our military involvement in Afghanistan? Nuclear weapons play no role in that either. The Russians absorbed Crimea and are intervening in Ukraine. Again, U.S. nuclear weapons did not stop the aggression.
Our nuclear weapons are irrelevant even in security dilemmas with nuclear-armed countries! For instance, in the increasing competition between U.S. and China for dominance in Asia, nuclear weapons play no role.
There are other reasons to be skeptical of Hagel’s proposed reforms; the dichotomy of increasing funding for a program whose purpose the DoD hopes to diminish is a bit contradictory. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, feels that “Throwing money after problems may fix some technical issues but it is unlikely to resolve the dissolution that must come from sitting in a silo home in the Midwest with missiles on high alert to respond to a nuclear attack that is unlikely to ever come.”
Clearly there are administrative and organizational steps needed to be taken to deal with declining morale among the service men and women dealing with our nuclear force, especially considering the recent missileer cheating scandal and reported neglect among senior leadership of the decaying forces.
But neither Hagel nor the two reviews address the top unspoken question: why should the United States spend up to a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to build new nuclear submarines, land-based ICBM missiles, long-range bombers and modernized nuclear weapons?
The United States requires a well-maintained nuclear force. But it can do so with a much smaller number of nuclear weapons and even without the land-based leg of the triad.
Who says? Why, that same Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who, as co-author of a 2012 nuclear policy commission report, wrote:
“No sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face – threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict- driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics or climate change… In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”
Too bad the new Hagel did not consult the old Hagel.
Testimony by Peter Galbraith to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
by Peter W. Galbraith [contact information] Testimony of Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa on genocide in northern Iraq I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the fate of the […]
26 Senators sign letter to Obama administration urging increased nuclear security funding
Earlier today (August 18) Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Feinstein (D-CA) released a bipartisan letter calling on the Obama administration to support increased funding for vital programs at the Department of Energy to keep nuclear and radiological materials out of the hands of terrorists. The full text of the letter is pasted below the jump. You can read the Merkley and Feinstein press release announcing the letter here.
26 Senators signed the letter, including 22 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 2 Republicans.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and Council for a Livable World strongly support the letter’s message and urge the White House to act on this bipartisan call for increased funding to prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism.
The Obama administration’s recent budget requests have not reflected the rhetorical emphasis it has rightly placed on combatting nuclear terrorism. The FY 2015 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reduces funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and the International Nuclear Materials Protection Program (IMPC) by 25% and 27%, respectively, signaling a major retreat in the Obama administration’s effort to secure nuclear and radiological materials at an accelerated rate. This is the third year in a row of budget cuts to these core nonproliferation programs. The proposed budget cuts to these programs are difficult to understand since the danger of nuclear and radiological materials falling into the hands of terrorists remains a serious threat.
Reducing funding for these programs increases the amount of time it will take to secure or eliminate dangerous materials that could be used by terrorists in an improvised nuclear explosive device or a dirty bomb. This is an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. Important nuclear security efforts should not be slowed by lack of funds.
Fortunately, both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee significantly increased funding above the budget request for NNSA’s core material security and nonproliferation programs. However, it remains to be seen if these higher funding levels will survive and whatever final authorization and appropriations bill is passed by Congress for FY 2015.
For more information on the budget cuts, see our handy fact sheet. For a more detailed discussion of the Obama administration’s nuclear security request and the harmful impacts of budget cuts, see this excellent recent report by Harvard’s Managing the Atom Project co-authored by Nukes of Hazard alum Nickolas Roth.
August 13.2014
Mr. Shaun Donovan
Director
Oftice of Management and Budget
725 I th St NW
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Director Donovan,
We write to request the Administration, in its next budget request, seek increased funding for vital nuclear material security and nonproliferation programs. We have been concerned that the President has proposed cuts to these programs over the last several years. We believe that unsecured nuclear material poses an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security and hope future budgets will reflect the importance of nuclear security efforts.
The President has said that nuclear terrorism is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” He followed these words by hosting the first Nuclear Security Summit in 2010. While we applaud the President’s leadership in spearheading an accelerated international effort to enhance the security of nuclear and radiological materials, we remain concerned about what the future would look like if we slow these programs. For example, through programs such as the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), thirteen countries eliminated all the highly enriched uranium (HEU) or separated plutonium on their soil since 2009, including all HEU from Ukraine. I applaud those efforts been slowed by anemic funding, it is possible that the United States would face the threat of weapons-grade nuclear material in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.
Despite these noteworthy achievements, significant work remains to be done. There are still
hundreds of sites spread across 30 countries that have weapons-usable nuclear material. Many of these locations have very modest or insufficient security measures. For these reasons and others. the FY 201 5 Senate Energy and Water bill increased funding for these programs above the President’s budget request by $136 million for the GTRI, $33 million for research and development, and $50 million for the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program.
Reducing budgets for agencies and programs that help keep nuclear and radiological materials out of the hands of terrorists is out of sync with the high priority that President has rightly placed on nuclear and radiological material security and signals a major retreat in the effort to lock down these materials at an accelerated rate. The recent spate of terrorism in Iraq, Pakistan, and Kenya is a harrowing reminder of the importance of ensuring that terrorist groups and rogue states cannot get their hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons and materials.
Given current world events, now is not the time to pull back on nonproliferation, a major U.S.
policy objective. Going forward, we urge you to work with us to ensure that critical nuclear
material security and nonproliferation programs have the resources they need. We seek your
support for a FY 2016 budget that builds on the Senate Energy and Water proposed FY 2015 funding levels to further accelerate the pace at which nuclear and radio logical materials are secured and permanently disposed.
Sincerely-
Iran Needs More Than Limited Sanctions Relief to Recover
The decision to extend negotiations with Iran in pursuit of a final nuclear deal means a commitment to four additional months of diplomacy and collaboration. For Iran, this also means four additional months of limited sanctions relief contingent upon its continued cooperation with the IAEA and P5+1 countries as negotiations progress. Although some have argued that Iran is only interested in dragging negotiations out as long as it can to hold on to this sanctions relief, the fact remains that the relief provided has not been sufficient to alleviate Iran’s suffering economy in any substantial way.
Major sanctions relief remains a crucial element of any final deal with Iran. While the Obama administration has estimated that the sanctions relief afforded Iran since the signing of the Geneva Interim Agreement amounts to about $7 billion, the fact that Iran still makes only half the revenue from petroleum exports that it did two years ago translates into a $52.8 billion net loss: an amount hardly compensated for by the minor gains made under the interim agreement. Additionally, despite the fact that the P5+1 agreed to unfreeze $2.8 billion in Iranian assets over the next four months, Iran still has almost $100 billion in total assets tied up in overseas accounts.
On July 18, US Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew emphasized that temporary relief provided over the past six months “has been extremely limited” and that Iran’s economy “remains in a state of distress” from the sanctions still in place. The argument that Iran’s economy has made significant advancements since the Geneva sanctions relief is hyperbolic and does not reflect the impact of the economic situation on the ground. For the Iranian people, who elected President Rouhani based largely upon his promises of economic recovery, this national state of distress is reflected in daily suffering.
“Everything became several times more expensive (after sanctions); even the rich were struggling. Many people, including my dad, had to close their businesses down because of high taxes,” said Toktam Amer, a former business owner from Tehran, referring to the changes that occurred after the introduction of harsh international sanctions that curtailed Iranian oil exports and froze proliferation assets. Despite limited relief under the Geneva interim agreement, the public still feels the effect of these harsh embargoes on the ground.
With these ongoing economic hardships in mind, how does the Iranian public view the extension of talks? Iranian magazine publisher and music teacher Mohammad Ayyobi summarized his perspective on the extension by explaining that at least the economic situation in his shop won’t worsen during the four-month delay. If this statement sounds familiar, it should; it’s reminiscent of the American argument that extended talks are positive because at least nuclear security in Iran won’t worsen during the four-month delay. However, while his economic situation won’t worsen, it also won’t improve. For Mohammad Ayyobi, a comprehensive deal with major sanctions relief is crucial to improving his living condition.
“We have to be self-reliant and assume the sanctions are forever,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi of the Islamic Coalition Party after the four-month extension’s announcement, blaming the United States for delay in reaching a final deal and expressing his cynicism over the possibility for economic recovery under current sanctions relief.
For the average Iranian citizen then, it seems that sanctions relief is the issue of most direct impact: not the number of centrifuges or the length of “breakout time.” Because of this, spending the next four months pursuing a future comprehensive deal remain squarely within Iranian interests. But while US analysts have pointed out that the extension of nuclear talks is a positive step forward from the interim agreement, this reaction has often been attached to the sense that it is positive for the P5+1 at the expense of Iran.
“Continuing the negotiations would still benefit the U.S. and its allies. Ending them prematurely [sic] serve only Iran’s interests,” one CNN contributor declared, in a message that was intended to garner support for the extension. Although the piece praised the continuation of diplomacy, it simultaneously assumed that Iran’s interests were starkly opposite those of the United States: that Iran would actually benefit from ending negotiations prematurely.
This sentiment has been echoed in multiple areas, as writers often champion the diplomatic outcome for keeping Iran’s enrichment capacity at limited, interim agreement levels for the next four months, while failing to analyze the importance that reaching a final deal holds for Iran in terms of sanctions relief.
The extension of nuclear talks is mutually beneficial not because an extended period of diplomacy will allow Iran to drag out limited sanctions relief. It is beneficial because it provides an avenue for reaching a comprehensive agreement that would benefit both sides. Framing the extension as positive only for the P5+1 creates a rift where none need exist, and highlighting only one side of the negotiations creates an incomplete image of Iran as a negotiator. It paints the picture of a state that cares only about nuclear capabilities, when in reality, Iran cares enormously about sanctions relief and economic recovery. These issues matter not just to the public, who feel the effect of sanctions in their daily lives, but also to Iranian leadership; Rouhani needs sanctions relief to retain support for his administration and to ensure national economic improvement. Obtaining a major win on sanctions relief is of utmost importance to Iran, and the four-month extension has simply provided the space and time necessary to achieve this.