START, Posture Review and Nuke Security

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  It was announced today that the new START Treaty, to reduce the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, is essentially complete. Russia says the agreement is done, while the WH says it is extremely close. But, both confirmed that next month, probably April 8th or 9th, President Obama and Medvedev will sign the agreement in Prague. (Where Obama gave his nuke speech last April)
  
  It has been a long time coming, since the original one expired in December of last year. Both sides have stated many times they were close, but differences over missile telemetry verification and missile defense issues held up the final product.
  
  This morning President Obama met with Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar, the senior Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to brief them on the status of the treaty. Of course it needs 2/3 Senate approval.
  
  The agreement, in the broad terms agreed last summer, would require each side to reduce deployed strategic nuclear warheads to roughly 1,600, down from 2,200 now . It would also oblige each side to reduce its arsenal of strategic bombers and land- and sea-based missiles to 800, half the old limit of 1,600.
  
  It is an important treaty as it binds the Russians, establishes verification measures for them and continues the importance of cooperation in the field of nuclear weapons. Also, START was the brain child of Reagan.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032401535.html?nav=rss_email/components
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25start.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
  
  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hE2iqormvkQYM5Cxn9ouoe15J-8QD9EL79H81
  
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/
• believer

  

  After the health care debacle it's refreshing to see good news.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yes, and especially after it was believed this thing would be done by December of last year.
  Now, hopefully, it can be signed and ratified by the end of the summer. The only real resistance should be from Kyl and perhaps Liebermann and McCain depending on the specifics of verification.
• believer

  

  1,600 well-maintained and secured nukes is plenty of mutually assured destruction for either side.
  
  Besides the Cold War for all intents and purposes is over. If I were in charge of nuke targeting Russia would not be number 1 on my list.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  U.S. officials finally stated this morning the agreement is finalized. The President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen will speak about the agreement shortly.
  
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/START_announcement_expected_Friday.html?showall
  
  Video:
  http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Since R's will try and say the treaty will limit Missile Defense, the actual treaty will not limit Missile Defense whatsoever.
  
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-new-start-treaty
  

  Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail. The first tier is the Treaty text itself. The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions. The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents. The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol. All three tiers will be legally binding. The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
  
  Strategic Offensive Reductions: Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty. These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
  
  Aggregate limits:
  
  * 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.
  o This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
  * A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
  * A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
  o This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.
  
  Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.
  
  Treaty Terms: The Treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years. The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty. The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.
  
  No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

• derek bomar

  

  does anyone foresee the R's not going along with this because of healthcare? If so, I think that's a big, big mistake on their part.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar wrote: does anyone foresee the R's not going along with this because of healthcare? If so, I think that's a big, big mistake on their part.

  Too early to tell. Lugar, a prominent R, is fully in support of the treaty. The text and verification, missile defense issues will be the key.
  From the looks of it though, verification is solid and it will not constrain our missile defenses. Gates made this point several times this morning, and so did Mullen.
  
  Also, looks like voting won't take place until after August, so to give full time to look over the supporting documents.
  
  It makes no sense for R's to vote this thing down. The U.S. made out in this treaty.
  
  http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/26/will_senate_republicans_support_the_new_us_russia_nuke_treaty
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Boss just informed me after a briefing with officials that the verification regime includes 18 on site inspections a year by both countries to literally count each warhead at each weapon site. (The last START Treaty one could only count the missile and guess the warheads, now we can remove the shield and see how many warheads are on a deployed missile)
  
  There is also inspections on reserve and dismantled sites to ensure they are not being brought into service. This ensures that no one is cheating. This is the ultimate, "Trust, but verify."
• derek bomar

  

  It may make no sense, but it doesn't mean it won't happen...if we're to take McCain at his word, there won't be any bipartisanship this year...and it'd be pretty sad if that happened
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Great article in the NYT about the difficulty, and why it took so long to get any agreement. It pretty much backs up what I was hearing over the past 4 months.
  
  Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27start.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Thought I'd update the thread given the busy news that is going on this week.
  1. Today is the year anniversary of Obama's Prague speech where he pledged a long term goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and until that day comes maintaining a safe, secure and effective stockpile.
  Good piece on the challenges ahead and how the speech fits into the overall context going on today:
  http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40458
  
  2. The Nuclear Posture Review is due out tomorrow. What is that? It is the official review and declaratory posture of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile. Each administration releases one, and this is Obama's. After months of delays, it is due to release tomorrow. It will probably emphasize proliferation issues over deterrence. The review should also restrict how the U.S. will use its weapons, relying more on missile defense and conventional deterrence.
  Website where it will be released:
  http://www.defense.gov/npr/
  
  3. START Treaty. This Thursday the President will sign the new START or Prague treaty in Prague limiting both the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed warheads on 700 deployed launchers.
  
  4. April 12-13 will be the nuclear security summit, where the world's nuclear and non-nuclear powers will try and tackle the important issues of securing and eliminating the huge stockpiles of either loose nuclear material or highly enriched material that a terrorist would most likely steal. China's appearance at this meeting is a key, and the focus should be on both Russia and Pakistan.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Obama gave an interview today detailing what some had thought on declaratory posture-when the U.S. would use nuclear weapons.
  
  Obama is moving to eliminate "calculated ambiguity", which means the U.S. would leave open the ability to use nuclear weapons on nuclear and non nuclear weapons states that launch conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. President Obama is narrowing when the U.S. would use nuclear weapons.
  
  Now, the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against non nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. (Leaving open attacks on Iran or North Korea). The U.S. will also not use nuclear weapons in response to cyber, chemical or biological attacks. Instead, using our vast technological and conventional superiority to attack any adversary.
  
  He did leave open the ability to attack a nuclear weapons state, Russia/ China with a first strike option.
  
  Very interesting and a large shift from the last two administrations.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=all
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Nuclear Posture Review is out.
  http://www.defense.gov/npr/
  
  Fact Sheet
  http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf
  
  Couple things that I think nearly everyone can agree.
  1. The U.S. will continue to defend allies with a nuclear umbrella.
  2. The U.S. will continue to forward deploy nuclear forces and maintain the nuclear triad-bombers, subs, missiles.
  3. The U.S. will not test nuclear weapons, but keep a "Life Extension Program" going to update and ensure the weapons are safe, reliable and secure.
  
  Hard to find conservatives criticizing this. It still defends our allies. It still leaves open the ability to attack Iran, Russia, China. It still keeps our forces in a triad. It still keeps our warheads up to date and effective, and it places the threat of nuclear theft and terrorism at a higher place. Sounds good to me.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Kind of hard to go against the NPR when Mullen says the Chiefs fully support it, and SECDEF Gates is strongly behind it.
  
  Also, SECSTATE Clinton is at the Defense Department for the briefing. When was the last time a SECSTATE was at the DoD?
  http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
  
  Document is pretty much the whole deal, the only part that is declassified is the number of warheads and breakdown of the Stockpile technical details.
  That is very different than the Bush NPR, which was only 3 released pages.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Nuclear Posture Review is out.
  http://www.defense.gov/npr/
  
  Fact Sheet
  http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf
  
  Couple things that I think nearly everyone can agree.
  1. The U.S. will continue to defend allies with a nuclear umbrella.
  2. The U.S. will continue to forward deploy nuclear forces and maintain the nuclear triad-bombers, subs, missiles.
  3. The U.S. will not test nuclear weapons, but keep a "Life Extension Program" going to update and ensure the weapons are safe, reliable and secure.
  
  Hard to find conservatives criticizing this. It still defends our allies. It still leaves open the ability to attack Iran, Russia, China. It still keeps our forces in a triad. It still keeps our warheads up to date and effective, and it places the threat of nuclear theft and terrorism at a higher place. Sounds good to me.

  no it isn't...they fight anything Obama does
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Well, apparently the conservatives are saying it "ties our hands". (People on Dylan Rattigan, Cauvoto, CNN, Beck, Hannity on the radio)
  
  That is insane as it still allows for first strikes on Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and any other nuclear weapon state. It allows for strikes against states that are in violation of the NPT. It does not tie our hand whatsoever.
  
  When even the military is saying it is good, you know it is a good posture review and good policy.
  
  I've noticed watched the cable news and listening to radio, that the people that are criticizing it have no idea how nuclear policy is set or how nuclear deterrence works.
• stlouiedipalma

  Gulianni is on CNN right now criticizing it and everything else Obama. I'm waiting for him to mention 9/11, since it's his trademark.
  
  The agreement is good and leaves open our options should they become necessary. Anyone who opposes this is simply playing politics.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah, cause Rudy really knows the definition of nuclear deterrence, declaratory posture, and what a "Life Extension Program" is. lol.
  Rudy is a party hack that has lost all credibility in my mind. He has no new ideas other than Republican talking points. He was awful this morning on Morning Joe.
• stlouiedipalma

  Good point. He has become what some conservatives would consider a "celebrity", as he holds no elected office, has absolutely no influence with party policy yet is always available to put his opinion out there. It seems that he is considered a "fallback option" when the political discussion show need a guest.
  
  Back to the topic, however. This proposed treaty continues along the Reagan lines of "trust, but verify", as you pointed out earlier.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  In regards to the NPR, it is even uses Reagan's language that a "nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought" and that he sought a "world free of nuclear weapons".
• Devils Advocate

  

  After dredging through all of the documentation, I do not see why any "reasonable" person would have a problem with this. It allows for inspections and documentation of the program to insure compliance and would solidify the need to control and track fissionable material.
  
  I wonder how much money the DOD could save by selling decommissioned plutonium to help supply the worlds nuclear energy needs. At the very least it should pay for the implementation of this program and maybe generate some additional income. (one could only hope ant way)
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Devils Advocate wrote: After dredging through all of the documentation, I do not see why any "reasonable" person would have a problem with this. It allows for inspections and documentation of the program to insure compliance and would solidify the need to control and track fissionable material.
  
  I wonder how much money the DOD could save by selling decommissioned plutonium to help supply the worlds nuclear energy needs. At the very least it should pay for the implementation of this program and maybe generate some additional income. (one could only hope ant way)

  Agreed. START is modest and so is the NPR.
  
  As to the plutonium, the U.S. currently is reprocessing some of the stuff during into MOX, or mixed oxide fuel. They take the plutonium, downblend it and sell it on the market. Problem is it is expense, very expensive and turns out the government is having a hard time finding buyers.
  http://www.moxproject.com/about/
  http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100401_9044.php
  
  The rest of the plutonium is stored in silos at Pantex in Texas.
  
  As to the uranium from the bombs is downblended and used for power plants in the U.S. The U.S. has an agreement where the Russians ship their excess uranium over for our plants for a fee.
  The DoE recently announced a huge upgrade to the facility in Tenn. to help downblend uranium.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  START was just signed in Prague.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040801677.html?hpid=topnews
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Apparently, the Presidents and advisers went 85 minutes with the Russians and had some pretty intense discussions about missile defense, Iran and North Korea.
  
  Looks like the U.S. has not released the treaty text, but the Russians have. http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d2ef6d0dc8b2e65fc5.pdf