START, Posture Review and Nuke Security

Politics 45 replies 8,395 views
Devils Advocate's avatar
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Apr 8, 2010 9:54am
The Russians are upset about the US not willing to back off of implementing more missile defense in Europe.

Iran is a sticky situation for them because of it's proximity to their homeland. In the scale of things, thiss is heading in the right direction. Historically, It is not nearly as aggressive as the Reagan treaty that eliminated intermediate range nuclear weapons.

Over all I am still impressed. It is BHO's crowning achievement so far in foreign policy
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 8, 2010 9:59am
Yeah, if not the crowning achievement, it's up there.
In regards to missile defense, Pavel Podvig has some quick translations from the treaty:
In the Preamble:
[The Parties sign this treaty] acknowledging the link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive armaments, growing importance of this link in the process of reductions of strategic offensive forces, as well as the fact that the current strategic defensive armaments do not undermine viability and effectiveness of strategic offensive forces of the Parties.
Russia also made a separate Statement of Russian Federation on missile defense:
The Treaty Between Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures on Further Reductions and Limitations of Strategic Offensive Forces that was signed in Prague on April 8, 2010 can work and be viable only in conditions in which there is no qualitative and quantitative improvement of the capabilities of the missile defense systems of the United States of America. Therefore, the extraordinary conditions, mentioned in the Article XIV of the Treaty, include such an improvement of the capabilities of the missile defense systems of the United States of America that would result in a threat to the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/04/new_start_treaty_signed.shtml

US Statement on missile defense concerns:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/07/a-new-start
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 8, 2010 11:07am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 8, 2010 4:36pm
Moving to nuclear security, this article by Time details a few things.
1. The danger of having High Enriched Uranium in plants around the globe.
2. The importance of the world to recognize the problem in the Nuclear Security Summit next week.
3. The great work of the Dept. of Energy's National Nuclear Safety Administration's nuclear security team.

Bomb Chasers: How a Potential Nuke Was Rescued from Quake-Ravaged Chile
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978713-1,00.html
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 8, 2010 8:39pm
These are the things that tick me off. I can almost guarantee that she has not read the Review. I doubt she knows what deterrence, Life Extension or MIRV or GNEP is. Palin is such an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. Furthermore, Hannity is a complete and utter hack as I'm sure he has not read the document.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/04/palin-says-obamas-nuke-stance-is-like-a-kid-who-says-punch-me-in-the-face-.html
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 8, 2010 10:13pm
Obama on the idiot comment made by Sarah Palin:
"I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues.
Pretty funny. Meanwhile, Obama was actively in the START and Nuclear Posture Review Process and has a history of knowing the subject in depth.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/exclusive-president-obama-slaps-sarah-palin-expert-nukes/story?id=10321775
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 9, 2010 9:20am
Great NYT Op-Ed by Peter Feaver:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/opinion/09feaver.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

On the plutonium issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09nuke.html?ref=todayspaper

And on a lighter note, Check out the Daily Show, the section Fox's reporting on the nuclear agenda. Of course they get it all wrong.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
Apr 9, 2010 9:43am
Thanks for all the links and info, Ptown, really encouraging stuff.

And, i caught that Daily Show piece, pretty funny.
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 10, 2010 11:35am
No problem. It is a busy time for the issue.

Walter Pincus on the updating the existing stockpile and how complex the phrase "no new nuclear warheads" is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905055.html


Also, on nuke security:
US: al-Qaida exemplifies new-age nuclear threat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxFY0uxPOYgMUIE7Avm3TmMh8XMAD9EVQICG0

Don't tell me the administration is soft on terror.
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 11, 2010 11:22am
Security Summit that starts tomorrow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002991.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
The Fissile Materials Working Group, an umbrella organization for nongovernmental groups working on nuclear issues, estimated that there is enough "weapons-usable nuclear material" in the world to build more than 120,000 nuclear bombs.
By the way, I'd recommend people not to visit DC this week. The city is basically shutting down around downtown.
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 12, 2010 7:48am
Top officials stress country's nuclear strength
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/11/AR2010041103344.html?hpid=topnews
"The central focus of this nuclear summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to U.S. security -- both short term, medium term and long term -- would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said Sunday afternoon. "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating. And we know that organizations like al-Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure a nuclear weapon -- a weapon of mass destruction that they have no compunction at using."
Also,
Leaders Gather for Nuclear Talks as New Threat Is Seen
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/world/12nuke.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

and even Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/12/obama-appeals-world-powers-nukes-terrorist-hands/

It is really something that this is the largest meeting of heads of state ever in DC and they are discussing how to secure the most destructive weapons on the planet.
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 12, 2010 11:04pm
Great article by David Hoffman who's book " The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy", which I highly recommend, won a Pulitzer Prize today.

'Time Is of the Essence'
No terrorist has ever managed to detonate a nuclear device. Let's keep it that way.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/12/time_is_of_the_essence?page=full
majorspark's avatar
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Apr 13, 2010 1:17am
I too appreciate all the links and information. For those of us not directly involved in the field, it is quite convenient to be able to read up on the matter here.
derek bomar's avatar
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Apr 13, 2010 9:02am
ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Security Summit that starts tomorrow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002991.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
The Fissile Materials Working Group, an umbrella organization for nongovernmental groups working on nuclear issues, estimated that there is enough "weapons-usable nuclear material" in the world to build more than 120,000 nuclear bombs.
By the way, I'd recommend people not to visit DC this week. The city is basically shutting down around downtown.
I just left Sunday morning...got out just in time
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 13, 2010 3:47pm
A good overall summary of the event today, with the official closing tonight:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041300427.html?hpid=topnews
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 13, 2010 4:39pm
Live final remarks. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Big note, the Russians will close their last plutonium facility.
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 13, 2010 5:10pm
The final Communique"


Nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security, and strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials. In addition to our shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we also all share the objective of nuclear security. Therefore those gathered here in Washington, D.C., on April 13, 2010, commit to strengthen nuclear security and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. Success will require responsible national actions and sustained and effective international cooperation.

We welcome and join President Obama's call to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years, as we work together to enhance nuclear security. Therefore, we:
1. Reaffirm the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control; to prevent non-state actors from obtaining the information or technology required to use such material for malicious purposes; and emphasize the importance of robust national legislative and regulatory frameworks for nuclear security;

2. Call on States to work cooperatively as an international community to advance nuclear security, requesting and providing assistance as necessary;

3. Recognize that highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions and agree to promote measures to secure, account for, and consolidate these materials, as appropriate; and encourage the conversion of reactors from highly enriched to low enriched uranium fuel and minimization of use of highly enriched uranium, where technically and economically feasible;

4. Endeavor to fully implement all existing nuclear security commitments and work toward acceding to those not yet joined, consistent with national laws, policies and procedures;

5. Support the objectives of international nuclear security instruments, including the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, as amended, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, as essential elements of the global nuclear security architecture;

6. Reaffirm the essential role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the international nuclear security framework and will work to ensure that it continues to have the appropriate structure, resources and expertise needed to carry out its mandated nuclear security activities in accordance with its Statute, relevant General Conference resolutions and its Nuclear Security Plans;

7. Recognize the role and contributions of the United Nations as well as the contributions of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G-8-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction within their respective mandates and memberships;

8. Acknowledge the need for capacity building for nuclear security and cooperation at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels for the promotion of nuclear security culture through technology development, human resource development, education, and training; and stress the importance of optimizing international cooperation and coordination of assistance;

9. Recognize the need for cooperation among States to effectively prevent and respond to incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking; and agree to share, subject to respective national laws and procedures, information and expertise through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms in relevant areas such as nuclear detection, forensics, law enforcement, and the development of new technologies;

10. Recognize the continuing role of nuclear industry, including the private sector, in nuclear security and will work with industry to ensure the necessary priority of physical protection, material accountancy, and security culture;

11. Support the implementation of strong nuclear security practices that will not infringe upon the rights of States to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and technology and will facilitate international cooperation in the field of nuclear security; and

12. Recognize that measures contributing to nuclear material security have value in relation to the security of radioactive substances and encourage efforts to secure those materials as well.

Maintaining effective nuclear security will require continuous national efforts facilitated by international cooperation and undertaken on a voluntary basis by States. We will promote the strengthening of global nuclear security through dialogue and cooperation with all states. Thus, we issue the Work Plan as guidance for national and international action including through cooperation within the context of relevant international fora and organizations. We will hold the next Nuclear Security Summit in the Republic of Korea in 2012.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/13/more_house_gifts_for_obama
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 14, 2010 9:20am
Other documents:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/13/nuke_summit_document_dump

And a very interesting NYT piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/world/14prexy.html?ref=todayspaper

From the article:
"Now he’s beginning to get back to the agenda that he came to office to do,” said Nancy E. Soderberg, a former diplomat and now president of The Connect U.S. Fund, a nonprofit group that promotes international engagement. “His legacy in domestic policy is likely to be health care. But his legacy in foreign policy is likely to be this nonproliferation agenda.”
That is why I voted for the guy. He gets the importance of nuclear weapons and the threat they face.
Stephen G. Rademaker, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, said: “For a president coming out of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, it’s remarkable how much he has pursued a great power strategy. It’s almost Kissingerian. It’s not very sentimental. Issues of human rights do not loom large in his foreign policy, and issues of democracy promotion, he’s been almost dismissive of.”
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 14, 2010 9:52am
Nuclear review shows bipartisanship
By: William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger

Wow, big endorsement of the NPR, especially from Schlesinger a known nuclear hawk.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F88690E9-18FE-70B2-A8678C29FF556B34
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
Apr 14, 2010 11:03am
The crowning achievement of Obama's presidency thus far, IMO.

Finally does something that is at least a start to earning that Nobel Peace Prize. :D
ptown_trojans_1's avatar
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
May 14, 2010 3:34pm
Bringing it back, as the Obama administration submitted START to the Senate yesterday.

Next week, SECDEF Gates, SECSTATE Clinton, Adm. Mullen and other will testify in support of the treaty.
Yesterday Gates had an Oped in the Wall Street Journal detailing his support for the treaty.
And the WH released this fact sheet, detailing the increase in budget for the weapons and the numbers for deployed force structure:
The United States currently has 450 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. The baseline plan will retain up to 420 deployed ICBMs, all with a single warhead.
• The United States currently has 94 deployable nuclear-capable bombers. Under the baseline plan, some will be converted to conventional-only bombers (not accountable under the treaty), and up to 60 nuclear-capable bombers will be retained.
• The United States currently has 14 strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs). Under the baseline plan, all 14 will be retained. The United States will reduce the number of SLBM launchers (launch tubes) from 24 to 20 per SSBN, and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time.
This does raise some questions on readiness rates, as if you add up the numbers, they equal 720 and the limits are 700. Plus, 420 is an odd number as squads are broken up into 50 missiles.
Still interesting.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/New%20START%20section%201251%20fact%20sheet.pdf