In the segue from healthcare to jobs the Obama Administration is looking to put some luster on it's diplomatic efforts by a visit to nuclear armageddon. The President is currently hosting a nuclear non-proliferation conference being attended by 47 heads of state or senior ministers. It's aim is focused - securing nuclear material so that it will not fall into the hands of terrorists. No controversy here. Of the many groups making an effort at protest, none are advocating that it would be a good idea for terrorists to get their own nukes.

The NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) caused a tremble in the Congress over wording issues rather than actual impact. The review had been delayed for 3 months because of a rift in the foreign policy and defense agendas competing for President Obama's consent. One view was that the Review should be worded so that it was clear that our nuclear weaponry would be used only in response to a nuclear strike aimed at the United States. This group was led by VP Joe Biden.  On the other side, in an effort to maintain our "deterrent" posture (and keep our enemies guessing) wording was sought to limit the scope of our nuclear response, but not to limit it to responding to a nuclear attack on our soil. This group was led by SecDef Robert Gates and SecState Hillary Clinton. This is the side that has prevailed. The review reflects this positioning. Except for failure to single out "Islamic extremists" as a target, the NPR represents no significant change in nuclear weapons policy except to recognize that we are past a cold-war footing. 

The new START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) signed by the President and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague late last week has drawn it's share of criticism. With Talk Radio taking point, and the talking heads on the Sunday menu making the rounds you would think that the Obama Administration has handed the code book for our nukes over to our enemies. This is not the case. There are a few points that need to be adjusted, but on the whole, it represents an agreement that advances a ratcheting-down of an arms stockpile that is far in excess of any realistic need.

Currently 95% of all nuclear weapons are held by the United States and Russia. Our stockpiles are in the thousands of warheads (down from tens of thousands during the height of the Cold War era in the mid 1980s). China is number 3 and has less than 400 warheads. the nuclear powers (France, Britain, India and Pakistan) have less than 600 warheads combined, according to a study published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on April 6, 2010. Pariah-nation North Korea has an estimate of 10 warheads, maybe - probably less, could be none. A theory holds that they used up all of their fissile material in the test blast and they haven't reprocessed enough plutonium since to build a new bomb. In a world where numbers in billions or trillions are thrown about with abandon, these seems as small numbers. Still, under the framework of the new START agreement, should the cold war start up again, the stockpile we will be left with still maintains the original policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Should Russia, another enemy, or a combination of all enemies somehow trigger a nuclear response, they would be rendered a radioactive wasteland. Should Russia itself provoke a nuclear attack, we also would be turned into an ashtray. No nation is suicidal, no nation WANTS to use nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent when considering a nation's security. This is why they are sought by governments who do not have them. The argument has been made that the introduction of nuclear weapons to India in 1974 has made Pakistan think twice about it's belligerence. It has also been argued that Pakistan's development of nukes in 1998 leveled the playing field and has allowed both sides to move closer diplomatically because full scale war is now too dangerous an option. As a deterrent, nuclear weapons make sense to members states of the world community.Those with the means to develop them do. A nuclear armed North Korea is dealt with in a manner more cautious than a non-nuclear North Korea. That lesson is not lost on Iran.

The ability to make a nuclear bomb can not be unlearned. The genie is out of the bottle. Anyone with an internet hookup can get the expertise required to assemble a working nuclear device. What is still difficult to obtain is the nuclear material required to make a devastating explosion. Most designs require highly enriched plutonium (which is a by-product of uranium) Manufacture of plutonium is an extremely difficult process that has been mastered by only the United States and Russia. Other countries have limited ability and skill to go through the multiple refinements resulting in weapons grade plutonium.

It is easier to steal it, or obtain it through rogue elements of nuclear programs. There are literally tons of weapons grade plutonium held in bulk in both the United States and Russia. Securing that material, as well as assuring our own security, and the Russians securing theirs, is the basis of START. On balance, without the United States and Russian support, no other nuclear weapons program remains viable.

The new START agreement, reduces our nuclear weapons capability by one third. The Russian reduction is at the same rate. As both nations are so over-armed, this reduction is literally the same as a 450 lb person losing one third of his weight and becoming 300 lbs. That person is still obese and still needs to lose more weight, but losing the 150 lbs was helpful.

This has been brought into light as some retreat from an aggressive national security and painting the Obama administration as weak on defense. This is far from true with regard to this agreement. No treaty is entered into on the basis of the President's assessment alone. The State Department assesses risk in the stability and intentions of the nation we are negotiating with. The Defense Department prepares the "what ifs" if State is mistaken, and makes recommendations as to what levels of weaponry we will need to maintain to ensure our security. The Senate weighs in for "advice and consent" prior to a 67 vote supermajority required to ratify the treaty.

The basis for this treaty is our finding common ground with Russia on reducing excess stockpiles of nuclear materials as a way of bolstering our mutual security. "No Nukes" is a dream world slogan that will not come to pass until the next, even worse weapon is created. This START treaty makes it exponentially harder for those who would use nuclear weapons to get access to the materials to manufacture a weapon, or the means to deliver it. A common threat to both the United States and Russia is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining nuclear material. A nation obtains nuclear weapons to achieve respect not available without them. You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. A terrorist organization would obtain nuclear weapons to create chaos among the nations.

While a treaty implies trust between two nations, the United States and Russia retain the ability to turn each other into glowing rubble. Full deterrence is maintained by retaining sufficient quantities of nuclear capability to enforce MAD. Once a place is rendered lifeless and uninhabitable there is no need to redestroy it. At some point, the extra weapons are just not needed, and their presence put at risk the ability to maintain them securely.

Our only concern with this treaty goes to the elimination of upgrading weapons systems and only maintaining them. There are missiles and warheads nearing 60 years old. Many are operating on technology designed in the 1970s. It makes sense to maintain force levels, but improvements in efficiency or reliability would provide greater security than just replacing parts as they go bad. A cell phone from the 1980s was a primitive and unwieldy thing that didn't work all that well. A modern cell phone is a valuable (if intrusive) tool in everyday life. We believe that the same illustration can be used with regard to nuclear weaponry. Plutonium is plutonium and it doesn't change, but more effective and more secure technology can and should be applied to modernize our nuclear capability. That should be an issue raised in Senate hearings with a recommendation to amend the treaty.

Common Sense Dictates

TPP has read both the 17 page START treaty signed by President Obama, and the 165 page protocol that provides definitions of terms, data on weapons systems held, and exceptions. ( Both are available online
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/08/new-start-treaty-and-protocol   ). We have concluded that as a whole the agreement is a good one.  We believe that President Obama has it right on his emphasis with regard to nuclear materials security in both the START treaty and in his Nuclear Security Conference currently in progress. While we expect no major breakthroughs in what is essentially a photo op for individual national governments to stand up for responsible nuclear stewardship, we do urge the Senate to take action promptly on debate and ratification of the START treaty. The treaty addresses American security in a common sense fashion. We support passage.

RLB