Travis got this ball rolling last week, but we’ve put together a longer list of what some folks with some pretty serious credibility on national security issues have been saying about the NPR and New START. And it don’t exactly mix and match with what some of our good friends on the right have been saying. Read the whole thing below the jump. Here are a few excerpts:
“The chiefs and I fully support the findings of this nuclear posture review, because we believe it provides us and our field commanders the opportunity to better shape our nuclear weapons posture, policies and force structure to meet an ever-changing security environment….Even while it reduces the role played by nuclear weapons – a reduction I wholly endorse – this Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms our commitment to defend the vital interests of the United States and those of our partners and allies with a more balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we have at our disposal today.”
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Press Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, April 6, 2010
“The Russians may issue a statement saying that they have the right to withdraw if we deploy defenses to threaten the strategic balance. They issued such a statement in 1991; we issued a statement right back and both of them went into the dustbin of history. I think it would be – it is for the Senate to decide whether this treaty deserves ratification. I think it does. It would be tragic if we allowed Russian statements made for domestic purposes to derail it. [T]here is no restriction in START with regard to our missile defense capability.”
Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Press Briefing on Understanding New START and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 9, 2010
“There’s a particularly important point that I think will strengthen us for the future under the NPR. It’s something I’ve advocated for in the past, and this is the funding that is, and the commitment to funding and the focus on improving the nuclear enterprise under NNSA; this will truly strengthen the deterrent, not only for today but for 20, 30, 40 years from now. And the NPR’s endorsement of that I think is one of the most important aspects of that for strengthening our deterrence posture for the future.”
General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010
What Key U.S. Military Leaders and Influential Moderates and Republicans are Saying About the Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense, and Modernization
Critics of the New START agreement and the Nuclear Posture Review claim that the new policy limits U.S. nuclear options, constrains missile defense, and fails to modernize our nuclear weapons complex. Our military leaders disagree.
U.S. can maintain a robust and flexible nuclear deterrent under the Nuclear Posture Review and New START
“We have more robust deterrents today, because we’ve added to the nuclear deterrent missile defense. And…with the phased adaptive approach that the president has approved, we will have significantly greater capability to deter the Iranians, because we will have a significantly greater missile defense. We’re also developing this conventional prompt global strike, which really hadn’t gone anywhere in the — in the Bush administration, but has been embraced by the new administration. That allows us to use long range missiles with conventional warheads. So we have — we have more tools if you will in the deterrents kit bag than — than we used to.”
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Interview Jake Tapper of ABC’s “This Week,” April 9, 2010
“The chiefs and I fully support the findings of this nuclear posture review, because we believe it provides us and our field commanders the opportunity to better shape our nuclear weapons posture, policies and force structure to meet an ever-changing security environment….Even while it reduces the role played by nuclear weapons – a reduction I wholly endorse – this Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms our commitment to defend the vital interests of the United States and those of our partners and allies with a more balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we have at our disposal today.”
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Press Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, April 6, 2010
“No, I don’t feel constrained in the least, really. I think we have more than enough capacity and capability for any threat that we see today or might emerge in the foreseeable future. The capabilities that have been brought onboard with our missile defenses and other general purpose forces have been pretty substantial. The capabilities that we have in our existing nuclear fleet are more than adequate for the threats that we know of and that we are — we believe we could face.”
Marine Corp General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review from the Pentagon, April 6, 2010
“Based on [STRATCOM’s] analysis and through continued discussions with DoD leadership, my view is that [the NPR and New START] and associated budgetary investments continue to support these deterrence requirements, and that the New START agreement warhead and platform numbers provide appropriate military flexibility….I am confident that the NPR and New START outline an approach that continues to enable the men and women of U.S. Strategic Command to deliver global security for America today and in the future….START does not limit anything that we’d need to do.”
General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010
“We believe that the substantial edge the U.S. has developed in conventional military capabilities, which the NPR notes, permits this country to sharply reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.”
William Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, and James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and Vice-Chairman of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, April 14, 2010
New START does not limit U.S. missile defenses
“Missile defense is not constrained by this treaty.”
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
White House Press Briefing on the Announcement of the New START Treaty, March 26, 2010
“There are no constraints in this treaty associated with our missile defenses or our prompt global strike capabilities, read conventional.”
Marine Corp General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review from the Pentagon, April 6, 2010
“[T]here is no restriction in START with regard to our missile defense capability.”
General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010
“The New START Treaty has no constraints on current and future components of the BMDS development or deployment. Article V, Section 3 of the treaty prohibits the conversion of ICBM or SLBM launchers to missile defense launchers, and vice versa, while “grandfathering” the five former ICBM silos at Vandenberg AFB already converted for Ground Based Interceptors. MDA never had a plan to convert additional ICBM silos at Vandenberg and intends to hedge against increased BMDS requirements by completing construction of Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely. Moreover, we determined that if more interceptors were to be added at Vandenberg AFB, it would be less expensive to build a new GBI missile field (which is not prohibited by the treaty). Regarding SLBM launchers, some time ago we examined the concept of launching missile defense interceptors from submarines and found it an unattractive and extremely expensive option. As the committee knows, we have a very good and significantly growing capability for sea-based missile defense on Aegis-capable ships. Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program.”
Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, Director, Missile Defense Agency
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 15, 2010
“The Russians may issue a statement saying that they have the right to withdraw if we deploy defenses to threaten the strategic balance. They issued such a statement in 1991; we issued a statement right back and both of them went into the dustbin of history. I think it would be – it is for the Senate to decide whether this treaty deserves ratification. I think it does. It would be tragic if we allowed Russian statements made for domestic purposes to derail it. [T]here is no restriction in START with regard to our missile defense capability.”
Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Press Briefing on Understanding New START and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 9, 2010
The Obama administration has put forth a credible plan to enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex
“So the chiefs, and I and – and the directors of the nuclear labs are all very comfortable that – that this [the Nuclear Posture Review] puts us in a position to modernize the stockpile and – and the $5 billion dollars that Hillary [Clinton] has referred to is actually just what’s in our budget to – for this program.”
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Interview Jake Tapper of ABC’s “This Week,” April 9, 2010
“So both for myself, as a previous commander at STRATCOM, and also for General Shelton, we both feel very comfortable with these numbers and with these descriptions of reuse, replace, refurbishment, so to speak.”
Marine Corp General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review from the Pentagon, April 6, 2010
“There’s a particularly important point that I think will strengthen us for the future under the NPR. It’s something I’ve advocated for in the past, and this is the funding that is, and the commitment to funding and the focus on improving the nuclear enterprise under NNSA; this will truly strengthen the deterrent, not only for today but for 20, 30, 40 years from now. And the NPR’s endorsement of that I think is one of the most important aspects of that for strengthening our deterrence posture for the future.”
General Kevin Chilton, Commander, STRATCOM
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010
“The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reaffirms President Obama’s commitment to providing the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) the resources required to support the President’s nuclear security agenda and maintain the safety, security and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without underground testing….This NPR reflects that commitment [to sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal] and our budget request, if approved, would provide the resources required to make that possible….Further, the Administration’s commitment to a clear and long-term plan for managing the stockpile ensures the scientists and engineers of tomorrow will have the opportunity to engage in challenging research and development activities that are essential to their recruitment and retention.”
Thomas D’Agostino, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 14, 2010
“Now that the NPR is completed, we see that it is compatible with our recommendations. The review gives a comprehensive and pragmatic plan for reducing nuclear risks to the United States. We believe it offers a bipartisan path forward — while allowing for healthy disagreements on specific issues….We also see that the NPR puts special emphasis, as our report recommended, on improving the nation’s complex nuclear infrastructure and enhancing programs to recruit and keep the nation’s best scientific minds. The administration’s commitment to increase investment in our national laboratories also ensures that they continue their important role in sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal and in solving many other problems facing the nation.”
William Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, and James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and Vice-Chairman of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, April 14, 2010
April 14, 2010
“So I think that it is hard to come up with a definition of supporting modernization that the Nuclear Posture Review isn’t responsive too….[A] strong case can be made that the Nuclear Posture Review is responsive to the concerns that we be able to modernize, in the sense of finding new and better ways to keep the arsenal safe, secure and reliable, while forswearing modernizing to the extent that, that means doing something fundamentally new.”
Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration
Press Briefing on Understanding New START and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 9, 2010
