President Obama seeks Russian deal to slash nuclear weapons

[vector7]

President Barack Obama calls for a nuclear free world in Prague speech

The country that dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945 has a "moral responsibility" to work towards securing "a world without nuclear weapons", President Barack Obama has said in a speech in the Czech Republic.

By Toby Harnden in Prague
Last Updated: 5:21PM BST 05 Apr 2009

Mr Obama told a crowd of about 20,000 gathered in Hradcany Square, next to Prague Castle that nuclear weapons were the "most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and the risk of a nuclear attack had never been greater because "terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one".

Speaking in a city chosen for the symbolism of its peaceful toppling of communism through the Velvet Revolution of 1989, he denounced "fatalism" over nuclear proliferation and vowed to lead a global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

"As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," he said. "We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone, but we can lead it.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment and desire to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

Maintaining that he was "not naïve", Mr Obama buttressed his startlingly optimistic and ambitious aim - even employing his campaign of "Yes, we can" - with a strong condemnation of the North Korean rocket launch, hours before his speech, and tough words on Iran.

The United States would continue to develop a missile defence system until Iran abandoned its nuclear ambitions, he said. "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven," he said.

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies." He hailed the "courageous" Czech Republic and Poland for "agreeing to host a defense against these missiles."

But he also spoke of the potential for a rapprochement with Iran that would remove the need for a missile defence system.

"If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed."

Tehran, he said, had two choices. "We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take."

Mr Obama called for a reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy, negotiating a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia - to which Moscow agreed to in principle last week - and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons.

He also announced that the US would hold host a global summit on nuclear security in next year and that he would work to ratify the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999 but rejected by the US Senate.

Mr Obama who was woken at 4.30am in his hotel room in Prage by his press secretary Robert Gibbs to be told of the North Korean rocket launch over Japan, said that, said Pyongyang had to be called to account and urged a strong international response at an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting.

"This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons," he said. "Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something.

"The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

Mr Obama's reference to the devastating atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing as many as 220,000, in August 1945 was part of his concerted effort to rebuild bridges with the world by promising, as he said in Strasbourg, "to listen to learn and to learn" and to acknowledge American failings.

Gary Samore, the White House's Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism, indicated that Mr Obama's call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons need not be taken too literally.

"In terms of a nuclear-free world, I think we all recognize this is not a near-term possibility." Rather, the call was an attempt to "seize the moral high ground" in order to increase pressure on countries like North Korea and Iran.

[Beetle]

AHHH, go tell it to Iran and North Korea.

[vector7]

		Russia
		Russia to keep SS-18 ballistic missiles in service until 2019
		14:17 | 10/ 04/ 2009

MOSCOW, April 10 (RIA Novosti) - The RS-20V Voyevoda-M (SS-18 Satan) intercontinental ballistic missile, introduced almost 21 years ago, will remain in service until 2019, the commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) said on Friday.

"The extension in the service life of the [Voyevoda-M] missile will allow us to keep these missiles, the most powerful in the world, in the SMF for another eight-10 years," Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said.

"We have no technical difficulties in accomplishing this task," he added.
The general also said Russia was developing a new ICBM comparable to the SS-18, and would gradually decommission older versions of the missile "in order to ensure nuclear safety."

According to publicly available sources, Russia currently has 88 SS-18 missile silo launchers, most of them deployed at the Dombarovsky missile base in the Orenburg Region, southern Urals.

The missile is armed with a warhead fitting 10 multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) with a yield of 550 to 750 kilotons each.

It has a maximum range of 11,000 km (6,800 miles) with a launch mass of over 210 tons and a payload of 8.8 tons.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hmmm... I seem to remember that Russia was stating they were going to decommission those SS-18s because of their age and to comply with treaty obligations. Guess not.

Just like I had said would happen when they said they said they would get rid of them.

[vector7]

Disarmament 101

by J. R. Nyquist

Weekly Column Published: 04.10.2009

When we read eye witness accounts of the bombing of Hiroshima, which occurred in August 1945, we are shocked at the horror and inhumanity of the world’s most terrible weapon – the atom bomb, which subsequently evolved into the hydrogen bomb. If today’s nuclear arsenals were unleashed against urban centers, hundreds of millions would die. Entire national economies would collapse.

Some people imagine that nuclear weapons are, in themselves, a great evil. They argue that all nuclear weapons should be scrapped. After all, in the fullness of time, by design or by accident, nuclear war is inevitable. Doesn’t it make sense to do something to prevent such a disaster? Shouldn’t we embark on a universal program of nuclear disarmament?

Two points should be made regarding this subject. First, nuclear weapons are not evil. They are merely inanimate objects. If there is danger in the world, it comes from evil politicians. Second, lethal biological weapons have greater death-dealing potential than nuclear weapons. The United States does not possess an arsenal of lethal biological weapons. If we eliminate our nuclear weapons and do not account for the biological arsenals of Russia, China, North Korea, etc., we will leave ourselves open to attack without any means of retaliation.

Few have considered what genuine nuclear disarmament would entail. Unless the whole human race takes a drug that makes everyone stupid, nuclear technology is not going to disappear. As long as modern civilization remains technologically advanced, we will have weapons of mass destruction. There is no way around this, because the ultimate weapon is not a nuclear bomb. The ultimate weapon is the human mind.

Our new administration in Washington thinks that eliminating all nuclear weapons (in every country) would be a good thing. President Obama says that eliminating all nuclear weapons “is not pie in the sky.” But if this is not pie in the sky, then nothing is. For even if every nuclear arsenal were dismantled, some countries might build new arsenals in secret. Therefore, real nuclear disarmament requires the elimination of all whose skill and knowledge would facilitate the construction of future arsenals. One would have to arrange abortions, as well, for all fetuses that might be born and later become nuclear scientists. It must be admitted that weapons of mass destruction do not exist of and by themselves. They stem from our technological sophistication, from our intellectual accomplishments, from modern scientific concepts. Only if we eliminate these precursors, can we eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Nevertheless, the new administration is determined in its Utopian venture. The White House Web Site states: “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

Obama and Biden are determined to remove the chief guarantor of peace – America’s nuclear arsenal. They no longer believe in the “balance of terror.” What they want is a treaty for the elimination of nuclear arsenals worldwide. Totalitarian countries have a long record of treaty violations.

The ruling KGB gang in Russia is currently developing a super-plague weapon in violation of existing treaties. These people are not going to keep a nuclear arms control agreement if they can achieve global dominance by cheating. If all nuclear weapons were eliminated, you would merely achieve the disarmament of the United States.

Obama and Biden are dreamers. If you are going to play the utopian game, why stop at the elimination of nuclear weapons? Why not eliminate evil? Get every world leader on the phone and propose the elimination of evil worldwide. After all, the problem was never in the weapons. It was in the people who built them. Even if you remove all the nuclear weapons from the planet, evil people will try and build new weapons. And they will do so secretly. How does Obama propose to stop them?

In discussing the elimination of nuclear weapons, or the elimination of evil, we are not talking about a fourth grade math problem; in fact, many so-called problems are not problems at all because they do not admit of any solution whatever. We cannot prevent a nuclear war by eliminating nuclear weapons any more than we can eliminate evil. The truth of the matter was eloquently summed up by Ursula LeGuin, who wrote: “[Evil is not] something that can be solved...” Instead, she observed, it is “all the pain and suffering and waste and loss and injustice we will meet all our lives long, and must face and cope with over and over, and admit, and live with, in order to live human lives at all.”

As mature adults, as realists and not fantasists, we should embrace LeGuin’s words. Evil is among us, it is within us, and it is here to stay. And the same is true of nuclear weapons, with the following addendum. There is a path to nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free world. It is the path of nuclear war, in which civilization and mankind are taken back to an earlier, less technologically advanced era.

[vector7]

Japan calls summit on nuclear disarmament

By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
Posted 1 hour 13 minutes ago

Japan says it will back US President Barack Obama's drive for a nuclear-free world by holding a global disarmament summit.

Japan is the joint sponsor with Australia of a new global initiative to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

The only country to have suffered the devastation of the atomic bomb, Japan says it will host an international nuclear disarmament conference next year.

Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone has called on the major nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, to lead the disarmament drive.

He also singled out China, India, Pakistan and Israel as weapons states which should follow suit.

But the minister says North Korea remains the region's most serious nuclear threat.

[vector7]

Russia, U.S. to hold first formal START talks in mid May Moscow

www.chinaview.cn 2009-04-28 03:38:26

Print

MOSCOW, April 27 (Xinhua) -- Russia and the United States will hold first round of full-fledged talks on nuclear weapons reduction between May 18 and 20 in Moscow, news agencies reported late Monday citing Russian Foreign Ministry.

"We have agreed to hold the first round of talks between the two delegations in the full format in Moscow between May 18 and 20," the Interfax news agency quoted a statement from the ministry assaying.

Officials from Russia and the United States have met in Rome last week for initial talks.

After the initial talks both sides said they were satisfied with the outcomes and were optimistic about future steps in the process, which was aimed at creating a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) before it expires in December this year.

The START 1, launched in 1991 and came into force in 1994, banned the production, testing and deployment of air-launched ballistic missiles, underwater launch systems for ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as orbital missiles.

The two sides are expecting a bilateral agreement at the end of 2009.

According to Russian and U.S. arms control experts, the new upgraded treaty will seek to reduce arsenals to 1,500 on each side.

It is estimated that the United States currently has at least 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads deployed and Russia has between 2000 and 3000.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton will hold further talks on the issue in Washington on May 7, the RIA Novosti news agency reported last Thursday.

[vector7]

		World
		Obama shows flexibility in first 100 days - Russian senator
		13:53 | 28/ 04/ 2009

MOSCOW, April 28 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. President Barack Obama has, in his first 100 days in office, demonstrated flexibility in foreign policy and a willingness to use dialogue rather than confrontation, a senior Russian senator said on Tuesday.

Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Russian Federation Council's foreign affairs committee, said the new U.S. administration is not rushing to integrate the ex-Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO or to deploy its controversial missile defense shield in Central Europe.

"President Obama is striving to solve these issues in [U.S.-Russian] relations through dialogue," Margelov said.

Moscow has been at loggerheads with Washington over plans to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe. The U.S. earlier signed agreements with the Czech Republic on hosting a radar station and with Poland on the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles by 2013.

Russia says the missile shield would be a threat to its national security while the United States has argued it is necessary to guard against the threat of missile attacks from states such as Iran.

Top Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their hope that the new U.S. administration will not follow through with the plans, and President Dmitry Medvedev said following talks with U.S. President Barack Obama in April that both countries would make every effort "to find a way out of this difficult situation."

Margelov also said that a working group between the Russian Federation Council and the U.S. Senate will take place at the end of May to discuss joint U.S.-Russian projects, which according to him is required after both countries have new leaders.

"We will try to deliver the results of our inter-parliamentary meeting to the leaders of our countries before [Obama's visit] to Moscow," he said.

Obama plans to visit Russia in July.

[vector7]

From The Times

April 27, 2009
Cutting the nuclear arsenals

The fewer warheads Russia and America have, the harder it is to maintain global balance

Russian and American negotiators began work at the weekend on their ambitious plans to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The talks are intended to produce a new agreement to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) that expires in December. This time, however, both sides are committed to cutting their arsenals well below the current combined total of 5,000 warheads, after the declaration by presidents Obama and Medvedev in London on April 1 that they would work towards the scrapping of all nuclear arms. It is a fraught endeavour, but a very worthwhile one.

It is a visionary aim, and revives one of the main vehicles for reducing East-West tensions during the Cold War. President Obama has returned to arms control, one of the goals outlined in his inaugural address, as a way of improving America's strained relations with Russia. But it will be difficult to achieve. For as warhead numbers are reduced, related issues become more complicated. If, for example, both sides cut their totals to 1,500 each, verification becomes more important, especially for the Russians, who know that the Americans could rebuild their arsenals more quickly. And this would mean Russia's defence ministry and arms factories accepting more transparency than they have before.

The second issue is delivery systems. Russia fears it will lose out in cuts, as its long-range missiles are ageing and probably far less reliable than US missiles. Last week Mr Medvedev insisted that any new treaty should limit all systems, including the strategic triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and heavy bombers. But the Americans have an advantage that strategists might be reluctant to abandon, especially as they are deeply worried about the threat of missiles fired by states still building up offensive capabilities. But with warhead numbers reduced to about the 1,000 mark proposed by Mr Obama, the US would have to consider abandoning one leg of its strategic triad.

The third risk in a drastic reduction of warheads is that the two former superpowers have less of an advantage over other nuclear powers, especially China. The deterrents still hosted by Britain and France are unlikely to upset the balance, but China appears determined still to maintain its arsenals at current levels, as do India, Pakistan and Israel. The importance, therefore, of each warhead being up to date and fully operational increases. That will make it harder for Mr Obama to persuade Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which it refused to do in 1999. It may also raise pressure to resume some form of testing.

The talks will also raise questions about other arms treaties. The Russians are unwilling to make concessions as long as the US is committed to the Bush Administration programme of installing an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Mr Obama has signalled that this may not now go ahead, but much depends on Iran and North Korea, which have reacted aggressively to his conciliatory overtures.

The key issue in all talks will be mutual trust. That broke down during the Bush Administration. The relationship may now be on the mend. But it will take months of tough bargaining before either Russia or America is ready to lead the way to a world without nuclear weapons.

[Ryan Ruck]

Mccain Backs Obama's Call To End Nuclear Weapons

US Senator John McCain Friday backed a call by President Barack Obama, his former rival for the White House, for a planet free of nuclear weapons and this should start with North Korea and Iran.

The Republican senator from Arizona was speaking in Japan on the last leg of an Asia tour, after Tokyo was angered by Pyongyang firing a rocket over its territory Sunday.

"Concerning President Obama's commitment to the removal of nuclear weapons from the Earth, I certainly support that ambitious goal," McCain told a Tokyo press conference.

"We have two countries in the world that could destabilise both parts of the world -- the Iranians and the North Koreans. They both are on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

McCain reiterated a view held by Washington, Seoul and Tokyo, saying the North Korean launch was "a direct violation of the UN Security Council resolutions and against the norms of decent behaviour as a citizen of the world."

He added that "Iranians risk a destabilisation of the entire Middle East as they continue on their path to acquire nuclear weapons."

While speaking out against regimes holding nuclear weapons, McCain voiced support for peaceful countries using nuclear power to shift away from carbon-based energy sources and to slow down climate change.

He was due to visit a nuclear power plant near Tokyo.

"As the United States increases and accelerates our efforts for energy independence as well as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, I believe that nuclear power must play a major role," the senator said.

McCain, who serves on the Senate committees on armed services and energy, was travelling with fellow senators Lindsey Graham and Amy Klobuchar on an Asian tour that earlier took him to Hong Kong, Hanoi and Beijing.

[vector7]

U.S. Ready To Cut Missiles in Russia Deal

05 May 2009 Reuters

The United States is ready to cut the number of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles as part of an agreement with Russia to replace a Cold War arms treaty, Washington's chief negotiator was quoted as saying on Monday.

President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed last month in London to pursue a new deal to replace the 1991 START I nuclear disarmament treaty that expires in December.

Russia has said any agreement must limit both warheads and all types of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles — the actual rockets and other means that deliver nuclear weapons — but Washington's position had been unclear.

Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance, told Interfax that Washington was willing to cut both warheads and delivery vehicles.

"In the presidential instructions received after the meetings in London, there is a clear order that negotiations should be focused on strategic offensive weapons, and this covers delivery vehicles and warheads," Gottemoeller said.

Interfax also quoted Gottemoeller as saying the United States was not ready to cut the warheads that have been dismounted from rockets and that are stored in U.S. arsenals.

Russia has insisted on counting all warheads as part of a new deal, but the United States believes that only those deployed on existing missiles should be counted.

Some analysts say the issue of how to count numbers of nuclear warheads could complicate negotiations.

Finding a replacement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the largest such treaty in history, is seen by both Moscow and Washington as an opportunity to improve ties that have been badly strained in recent years.

[vector7]

U.S. wants Israel, India in anti-nuclear arms treaty

Tue May 5, 2009 8:50pm BST

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Speaking on the second day of a two-week meeting of the 189 signatories of the pact, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller also defended a U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, which developing nations have complained rewards New Delhi for staying outside the NPT.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Gottemoeller told the meeting, which hopes to agree on an agenda and plan to overhaul the treaty at a review conference next year.

Speaking to reporters later, she declined to say whether Washington would take any new steps to press Israel to join the treaty and give up any nuclear weapons it has. Israel neither confirms nor denies whether it has what arms control experts assume to be a sizable atomic arsenal.

The administration of President Barack Obama was encouraging all holdouts to join the treaty, she said.

Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have never signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from it in 2003 and tested a nuclear device in 2006.

At the NPT meeting, developing countries have criticized the endorsement of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, an informal club of the world's top producers of nuclear-related technology.

The group agreed in September to lift a ban on nuclear trade with India, imposed after New Delhi's first nuclear test in 1974.

Delegates from poor nations complain that the endorsement was tantamount to rewarding India for remaining outside the treaty and secretly developing nuclear weapons. In contrast, they say, developing states are denied access to sensitive technology because they are often deemed proliferation risks.

NO MENTION OF IRAN

Gottemoeller defended the agreement. "India is coming closer to the non-proliferation regime," she said.

She cited India's willingness to work with Washington in pushing for a binding international treaty that would prohibit the further production of bomb-grade nuclear material and by improving its nuclear export controls.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Ali Hosseini on Monday railed against the United States and what he said was its continued nuclear support for the "Zionist regime" (Israel). Western diplomats called this an attempt to divert attention away from its own nuclear program.

In failing to mention Iran even once in her speech, Gottemoeller broke from a tradition established by the administration of former President George W. Bush, which had used NPT meetings to criticise Iran and North Korea.

Gottemoeller said that Iran came up indirectly in her statement when she spoke of the need for "consequences for those breaking the rules or withdrawing from the treaty."

Obama has offered Iran's leaders direct talks on a wide range of issues, including its nuclear program. Tehran has reacted coolly to the U.S. overtures nearly three decades after Washington severed ties with Tehran during a hostage crisis.

The West suspects Iran is developing weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, a charge Tehran denies.

Gottemoeller also reiterated commitments to disarmament that Obama made in a speech in Prague last month. She said the United States would continue its two-decade long moratorium on testing nuclear explosives and urged others to follow suit.

(Editing by David Storey)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

A deterrence we need
Why nuclear disarmament is an unwise promise
By Gene Myers

Claiming freedom from the ideologically driven policies of the recent past, the Obama administration has promised a “new pragmatic approach” to everything from the economy to national defense, including U.S. deterrence strategy. This implies a strategic view that embraces the old notion of politics being the art of the possible — a return to negotiation and compromise in solving the nation’s problems.

New political dawns often bring heightened expectations from supporters of the new governmental incumbents. In the case of defense policy, in particular nuclear defense policy, a return to old internal Cold War-era ideological clashes is likely in the offing, clashes that will strain national leaders’ ability to negotiate the “possible.”

The arrival of what could be called a moderately liberal executive branch reinforced by Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress along with a heightened awareness of the new dangers posed by rogue nations and global terrorist factions will likely resurrect Cold War desires to once and for all rid the world of nuclear weapons — and to strike while conditions appear optimal. As it has always been, nuclear disarmament is indeed a worthy goal but one not lacking in either difficulty or real national dangers.

The task for the new president is to convince the world that the U.S. is indeed serious about at least more closely approaching disarmament by further reducing nuclear stockpiles while at the same time doing what is necessary to assure the nation’s safety. Of course, the issue then becomes, does what is necessary include maintaining nuclear deterrence — possibly against the will of some “no nukes” advocates? Such ideological nuclear nirvana may eventually be in the cards, but the continued need to ensure national safety in a still-dangerous world has seemingly stacked the deck against it. For the present, let’s look at ways to make the current world less dangerous.

Any approach to nuclear arms reduction, ideological or not, has to deal rationally with one unrelenting reality. Nuclear weapons are possessed or strongly desired by an expanding number of nations: Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and quite possibly North Korea, with Iran reported to be on the verge. Some of these nations are viscerally hostile to the U.S. As if that were not enough, nuclear weapons are actively sought by a set of lethal new nonstate enemies (al-Qaida comes swiftly to mind) who have every intention of using what they get. Thus, ensuring the nation’s safety — the president’s most sacred responsibility — entails guaranteeing that potential adversaries see no benefit from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against the U.S. In other words, they must be deterred — all of them.

A recent report on Defense Department nuclear weapons management, the Schlesinger Report, alluded to the shifting sand of national security in reference to an old U.S. nemesis, one we believed we had made some progress with: “Russia is reshaping its doctrine and improving its nuclear arsenal toward greater reliance on nuclear weapons. There is a substantial set of experiments being conducted at its nuclear test site and President, now Prime Minister, Putin has publicly declared his intention to deploy new weapon types based on ‘new physical principles.’”

The administration’s same nonideological approach must also deal with one of the most ideologically spurred goals of the post-World War II era: the elimination of nuclear weapons. No rational observer can argue that such a political triumph would not be a boon to humanity, but as always, it is far easier said than done since that lofty task requires nothing less than convincing the aforementioned nuclear powers, near-nuclear powers and nuclear wannabes that they should throw down their arms and ambitions and join an enlightened world order.

The president’s wicked problem

So, President Barack Obama faces what some theorists would call a wicked problem with his nuclear deterrence policy — which is to say a problem, similar to others he faces from an economy on life support to a failing education system, with no optimal solution and no real way to make the left and right happy. The so-called political “negotiating space” in this instance is bounded by two perspectives.

Despite arguments for a less rigid position, sticking by their disarmament guns in the face of real dangers from new adversaries would not suggest a non-ideological approach to the administration’s wicked problem. To this observer at least, if single mindedly pursued, it seems to adopt an uncompromising extreme one from our Cold War past.

But fortunately, as with most things political, there are obvious, real-world driven compromises. During his April 6 speech in Prague, Obama clearly and firmly stated his desire to proceed down the nuclear disarmament path, but with some well placed caveats that, to this observer at least, do allow some room for maneuver and a strong desire to ensure national safety:

“This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence…. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”

Many nuclear weapons advocates cling to the notion of “sufficiency” — having an arsenal sufficient to deterring, by threat of use, any potential adversary with substantial reserves to intimidate any others that may seek to profit from the first striker’s mistake. Sufficiency in this case has traditionally implied a bludgeon-based deterrence strategy of inflicting catastrophic damage for major transgressions.

On the other hand, nuclear abolitionists insist that these weapons can indeed be eliminated with some — not all, certainly — suggesting that the U.S. should lead the way in unilateral disarmament. A fairly recent disarmament argument gaining some traction in government as well as in activist circles maintains that nuclear disarmament is necessary to prevent greater proliferation.

Neither extreme — abolition or legitimized assured destruction — is likely to happen, at least not anytime soon.

Of course, these arguments and positions are not new. The wicked problem has been with us since at least the 1960s. However, it has become even more wicked with the advent of deadly new players in the form of ideologically motivated non-state terrorist organizations that are far more difficult to deter than your run-of-the-mill nuclear-armed country — at least with the nuclear arsenals we now possess. Unfortunately, the odds are better than just fair that they will eventually obtain at least some sort of minimal nuclear capability (with a relatively unsophisticated, but still deadly, “dirty bomb” being a good candidate). The Hobson’s choice left to U.S. leaders of obliterating huge swaths of territory with a barrage of high-yield Cold War-vintage nuclear weapons or committing to a conventional land army invasion of some terrorist harboring nation (like the multiyear Afghanistan operation) in response to a deadly but very limited attack does not bolster either our credibility or deterrence of our enemies.

One argument for nuclear disarmament is gaining some acceptance within both government and activist constituencies. In a 2007 essay in The Wall Street Journal, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” four respected U.S. statesmen — the former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and Sen. Sam Nunn — unexpectedly argued for total nuclear disarmament. They maintained that even given advancements in traditional nuclear arms control agreements between major powers, proliferation would continue with many more nations being armed with the tools of Armageddon. They went on to suggest that as more irresponsible states possess nuclear weapons, especially states like North Korea and Iran, the greater are the dangers we face and, even more importantly, the greater are the chances that terrorists will eventually get their hands on them. They then proposed that such risks may ultimately be greater than the traditionally viewed risks posed by their abolition.

In discussing the dangers the international community faces from clandestine proliferators in a post-disarmament environment (where at least nuclear-armed nations have foregone their arsenals) in her recent Current History article “The New Disarmament Discussion,” Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, maintains that, “In its simplest form, the idea gaining momentum is that more weapons — regardless of whether they are amassed in existing nuclear weapon states or new nuclear weapon states — provide more potential access points for terrorists.”

But as compelling as these arguments may be, the issue is far from settled. The need to possess a credible nuclear deterrent for many years to come is still the prevailing credo of much of the political and military communities. Even given the president’s stated policy supporting the complete near-term cessation of fissile-material development and an expressed desire for complete disarmament, we can be assured that there is substantial disagreement within the government about ways to solve the nuclear problem. One indication is Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ insistence on developing new, less destructive, safer nuclear warheads to replace ones that are now two to four decades old, and doing so in the face of his new boss’s stated policy that the U.S. will not develop any more nuclear weapons. The rationale of course, is that to deter anyone — from Russia to al-Qaida — our arsenal must not engender doubt as to its effectiveness. It must work as advertised by our defense policy. But the Pentagon maintains it cannot guarantee that 30- to 40-year-old warheads will even work, especially since tests are prohibited. Gates summed up his position during a recent speech: “Even though the days of hair-trigger superpower confrontation are over, as long as other nations possess the bomb and the means to deliver it, the United States must maintain a credible strategic deterrent.”

I would also posit that perhaps instead of lessening the risks of proliferation, attempts at complete disarmament might just increase them as unknown and perhaps even some known players calculate the risks of developing or stashing away nuclear weapons as worthwhile when the rewards of being the only nuclear “power” on the block are so high. We must remember that the elimination of means to produce weapons and fissile materials by current members of the “nuclear club” only makes development of a rogue nuke more difficult, not impossible. With money and patience, weapons will be built. The knowledge and basic technology will still exist. Some participants in the nuclear gamble see such mutual international political structures as nonproliferation or test ban treaties as useful only to the extent that their questionable strategic goals are met. Violating treaties and agreements then becomes standard procedure (North Korea comes to mind).

I must emphasize, however, this does not suggest that the international community should cease making efforts to, if not eliminate nuclear weapons, at least mitigate the severity of the wicked problems it faces. The self-perpetuating disarmament debate tends to overshadow the true international requirement — security and safety. After all, safety from nuclear attack or blackmail is the objective; complete disarmament is but one means to achieve it. But if we choose to try total disarmament, any agreement must be truly and totally verifiable — no nation or group can achieve nuclear superiority with just one clandestinely built weapon. That is indeed a wickedly tall order.

SO, WHAT TO DO?

Perhaps we should try to mitigate the premise of nuclear proliferation by reducing the incentive to possess nuclear weapons in the first place.

It should be possible to reduce global nuclear stockpiles to a few hundred safer, less-destructive weapons if:

å The remaining weapons are truly and verifiably secure from both attack and theft. This serves to reduce temptations to attack them in times of crisis as incentives and rewards for doing so become greater. Storage site hardening, weapons dispersal (not as big a problem as now if you only have a few) and maybe even mobility offer some remedies. Regardless of the means, future treaties should focus more on ensuring that those weapons that do exist are protected than absolute knowledge of how many there are and should enforce common security standards for all participants. Numbers become most important to assuring that some have not fallen into other hands.

å These weapons are useful — they can accomplish the real war-fighting tasks assigned to them. In the present world this means that even if used in sparing numbers they can be seen as providing some active remedy against clandestine proliferators intent on applying their ill-gotten stockpile. If they are properly designed and protected, this does not require either the great numbers or the high yields so prevalent during the Cold War when power was a substitute for accuracy. Low-yield precision is the key now. It should be remembered that deterrence is only effective to the degree that the opponent believes you will and can achieve your objectives. Large-yield weapons are not operationally credible in the post-Cold War world, and high numbers are politically and economically untenable. At this point it is necessary to acknowledge that over the past decade-and-a-half important steps have been taken to significantly reduce the numbers and destructiveness of the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and the U.S. and some of our allies. These steps have lessened the potential for disastrous miscalculation and continued proliferation to some degree (though as previously pointed out, Russia may have begun backsliding). But as important as these actions are, they are not sufficient; other dangers and other proliferators remain and the technology exists to make individual weapons even less destructive.

å A new defense policy is developed and promulgated by national leaders, both U.S. and our international partners, that stresses the capabilities of an arsenal of weapons designed for a new type of deterrence, one that repudiates vestiges of Cold War mutual assured destruction and the many thousands of high-yield weapons it required and relies on the characteristics described above. This policy would make clear that rogue states and fanatical nonstate organizations are not off the hook and indeed will be targeted by an arsenal with accuracy, low yields and secure base best suited to meeting the challenges they present. This new nuclear structure would provide the capability part of deterrence. Stated national, and hopefully international, policy must now convince those we wish to deter of our will to do what is necessary.

Of course, this would require the president to abandon his promise of no new weapons or fissile materials. Such a course reversal is always a hard pill for any politician to swallow. In this case it is necessary. The new weapons proposed by this concept would be less destructive than what they replace and could be fielded on a less than one-for-one basis for old weapons — even unilaterally if necessary. If the intent is for nuclear weapons to never be used by nuclear-armed states, further reducing incentives for use-or-lose options is indeed a step in the right direction. If the intent is to also reduce the ability for rogue players to attain and use such weapons, then the big reductions of global weapons and components this strategy would represent would reduce availability of illicit materials as well as provide a more capable but less destructive means to respond to nuclear use by anyone, including non-state actors.

The intended effect here is to reduce incentive to possess high numbers of nuclear weapons, or in the case of nuclear aspirants, any at all. If nations see a markedly diminished threat to national survival as posed by the arsenals and strategies suggested here they may forgo the financial and political capital expenditures necessary to keeping up with the Joneses. But to our most ardent opponents, such a structure would at least begin to offer a credible threat to what they value most — their arsenals, the ability to control them and claims to legitimacy in acquiring them. The enhanced moral position of subscribing nuclear nations would also go far in bolstering their argument for strict nonproliferation. Trading in the last of their Cold War arsenals for far fewer less destructive but more secure weapons does portray a more responsible mind-set.

A LESS-WICKED SOLUTION

But in absolute terms the wicked problem would still exist. Nuclear weapons would not be abolished as the abolitionists desire, but their numbers and destructiveness would be significantly reduced — more than envisioned by many arms control advocates today. And it is likely that nuclear sufficiency advocates would argue that we will have gone too far and put our national security in jeopardy (“overkill” still being an operative concept to some.) So the wicked problem will still be with us — but maybe a little less wicked — and the world will be a good bit safer.

If they play their cards right, the new administration could claim a political victory — even while moving away from disarmament promises — by adopting an approach similar to the one advocated here. It would be no stretch of the truth to lay claim to ridding the world of thousands of nuclear weapons, making the international community safer than at any time in the nuclear era, reclaiming the international moral high ground in the non-proliferation debates and, perhaps most important, remolding our much-reduced nuclear arsenal into one that still deters — perhaps even those, like the Osama bin Ladens and Kim Jong Ils, who many believe could not be deterred. Not a bad day’s work. This will no doubt be a hard sell and difficult political task, but certainly would not be the only one the president did not shy away from. AFJ

■
GROVER E. “GENE” MYERS is a senior consultant with ABS Consulting in Arlington, Va. He is a retired Air Force officer with extensive experience in nuclear policy and aerospace and joint doctrine and concept development.

[vector7]

Russia seeks U.S. input on stored nukes

Published: May 12, 2009 at 12:23 PM


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

MOSCOW, May 12 (UPI) -- Russia says it is waiting for the United States to make a proposal to reduce both countries' stored nuclear warheads.

So far, the Obama administration has not indicated it wants to include those devices on its agenda for upcoming strategic arms reductions talks. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday in Moscow he's awaiting a proposal from Washington on the topic, RIA Novosti reported.

"As to stored nuclear warheads, it is important to understand how they will be counted (toward new arms limits)," he said. "We are waiting for U.S. proposals in order to analyze them in line with the principle of equally assured security."

Lavrov told reporters Russia isn't saying "no" on whether to count stored warheads, but added, "We are convinced that the new treaty must cover all (nuclear) warheads and all delivery vehicles."

Officials have set the first round of talks to replace the expiring START 1 treaty for next Monday in Moscow, with hopes of having a treaty ready for the signatures of Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev by July.

[vector7]

Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Will Obama Give Up America’s Nuke First Strike?

W-87 Warhead

From The Danger Room:

President Obama wants the world to get rid of its nukes, eventually. But, for now, it’s still official U.S. policy that America reserves the right to drop the first Bomb in an atomic war.

During the early 1980’s — the peak of the late Cold War — the Soviet Union declared that it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Many of America’s strategic lions — most famously Robert McNamara, George Kennan, Gerard Smith, and McGeorge Bundy — said we should do the same. But we never did. Why not? Primarily because we thought we might actually use the weapons first. In my view, one of the three most likely ways that World War III would have started would have been with Red Army troops surging west across Europe. American conventional weapons probably couldn’t have helped the French or West Germans stop them. But nuclear weapons could have.

Read more ....

[Ryan Ruck]

Russia seeks U.S. input on stored nukes

Yeah, I bet the do... Probably just going to take them and stick them in Yamantau Mountain and put a bunch of old tractor parts in their place to fool inspectors.

Will Obama Give Up America’s Nuke First Strike?

Why wouldn't he? Clinton did after all.

[vector7]

Nuclear Disarmament and Russia’s Heart of Darkness

by J. R. Nyquist

Weekly Column Published: 05.08.2009

Print In Steve LeVine’s book, Putin’s Labyrinth, we read about the atrocities of Russian troops in Chechnya and the torturing of innocent people. We read how Russian soldiers kill for sport. In one example, Russian troops seized a large group of civilians hiding in a bomb shelter. The soldiers handcuff them and stacked them face down, five deep on top of one another and transported them to the main headquarters of the North Caucasus Military District. Some victims suffocated to death, others were shot.

LeVine has lived and worked in the former Soviet Union. He has witnessed the callousness of Russian policy, and the criminal methods of the Russian state. He knows that the Kremlin hires assassins to kill its critics at home and abroad (e.g., Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko). “I had been under no illusion about Putin,” LeVine wrote. “His bare-knuckle approach to governing Russia had been apparent for some time. But now it was hard to avoid the conclusion that something more ominous was happening. What I was seeing in Russia went beyond the question of leadership style. Putin had set about restoring the legacy of brute Russia.”

LeVine is careful to explain that “other countries” don’t occupy “a higher moral ground than Russia.” The United States cannot claim noble status after the war in Iraq (which LeVine calls “a war of opportunity … employing torture as a policy – with the support of a majority of Americans”). Even so, the Russian atrocities testify to a more fundamental evil; a more thorough depravity that threatens the civilized world. What LeVine calls “the legacy of brute Russia” can best be understood by three facts: (1) The Russians haven’t buried Lenin; (2) They haven’t abolished the secret police; (3) They continue to wage the Cold War and quietly support Communists in Africa and Latin America.

To understand where Russia is headed, we have to ask why there is a Russian military buildup across the border from tiny Georgia, on the Black Sea. We have to ask why the Kremlin is playing games in Ukraine, Moldova and Central Asia. The following two charts, based on data from the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells the story. I picked the UCS data because it cannot be dismissed as coming from a “right wing” source. Chart 1, below, gives us a visual perspective on the world’s nuclear weapons, deployed and reserve. A deployed nuclear weapon is one that is set to be launched by a missile or bomber. A reserve nuclear weapon is not immediately deliverable, but may be deployed to a military base in the future.



Readers may be shocked by the fact that Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the United States. They may also be surprised to see that all other countries combined do not match the sum of either Russia or America.

This is the approximately same balance of nuclear power that existed during the Cold War. In light of these numbers, Chart 2 (below) gives us a visual perspective on the nuclear balance if the United States negotiates a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, putting the number of deployed warheads below 500 on each side.



Before negotiating something that looks like Chart 2, I would urge the president to read LeVine’s book. In fact, the president should read about the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Andropov and Putin. The murders and mass killings of Communist and post-Communist regimes in Russia cannot be disputed. While the United States continues to insist that the greatest danger is from nuclear weapons, maybe it matters as well who has the nuclear weapons – and how many are “reserved” for us?

Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey R. Nyquist

[vector7]

Russia, U.S. seek to reshape ties at nuclear talks

Mon May 18, 2009 12:06pm EDT
By Conor Sweeney

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons amassed during the Cold War could become the catalyst for a thaw in relations this week between the United States and Russia.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Kremlin chief Dmitry Medvedev last month agreed to pursue a deal on cutting nuclear weapons that would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which expires in December.

The three days of Moscow talks, starting on Tuesday, will have to deal with disputed technical details about nuclear weapons and coincide with NATO war games in Georgia which have angered Russia.

But diplomats said the discussions should help to narrow differences between the world's two biggest nuclear powers, allowing Obama and Medvedev to declare progress when they meet in Moscow on July 6-8.

"I think there is a will on both sides to agree a deal," said Dmitry Danilov of Moscow's European Security Studies.

The talks will also be a litmus test showing whether the former foes can work together now there is a new president in the White House and after relations sank to a post-Cold War low during last year's war in Georgia.

"Unlike the Bush administration, Obama's negotiating team will be more constructive, there have been signals that they're ready to discuss difficult issues," said Danilov.

Washington and Moscow hope that if they can agree to a successor to START by December, this will strengthen their hand in pushing for an updated Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Obama's administration was credited this month with helping 189 countries agree on the agenda for an overhaul of the treaty.

CUT STOCKPILES

The U.S. team in Moscow is led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller and will include officials from the Pentagon and Department of Energy.

Gottemoeller, an expert on Russia who is respected in Moscow, held preliminary talks in Rome last month with Russia's chief negotiator Anatoly Antonov, who heads the Foreign Ministry's department of security and disarmament.

Medvedev and Obama have said the new arms deal should cut stockpiles below those in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), under which both sides are to cut their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

Russia has said it wants to link the nuclear talks to U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Europe and has pushed for the United States to put a limit on the number of delivery systems -- the rockets or other means that deliver weapons.

The U.S. has said it will take such vehicles into account but has resisted Moscow's demands that warheads taken off missiles and put into storage should be counted.

Diplomats say that while technical issues remain central to a new agreement, the tone of talks is likely to be constructive.

No formal text is expected to be agreed in Moscow this week, said officials familiar with the agenda.

(Editing by Robert Woodward)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.


Related News
FACTBOX: Who are the world's nuclear powers?
9:44am EDT
FACTBOX: What is the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
9:44am EDT
FACTBOX: Key facts about U.S.-Russia START I arms deal
9:44am EDT
Q+A: Issues in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms talks
9:44am EDT
Russia pulls out of Georgia talks -agency report
12:06pm EDT

[vector7]

From Times Online
May 20, 2009
US and Russia start hard bargaining over slashing nuclear weapons
Tony Halpin in Moscow

The United States and Russia began the hard bargaining today over a deal to slash their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

An American negotiating team opened the first round of talks in Moscow with Russian officials about a replacement for the landmark 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 1), which expires on December 5.

Both sides are under orders to produce results in time for President Obama's first official visit to Moscow in July. He and President Medvedev agreed to replace START with a new treaty when they met in London in April, and to work towards a long-term goal of "a nuclear free world".

The US experts are led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller and the Russia team by Anatoly Antonov, the Foreign Ministry's head of security and arms control. The Foreign Ministry said that Russia was seeking "constructive dialogue and . . . practical results" from the two days of talks at a 19th Century mansion outside Moscow.

Related Links

* Missile shield 'won't protect Europe from Iran'
* US-Russian talks raise hope of nuclear cuts
* Obama attempts to ward off military air strike

Relations between the US and Russia remain difficult, however, despite the Obama administration's efforts to "press the reset button" and the pressure on negotiators to reach a speedy deal.

The Kremlin wants the US to abandon plans for a missile-defence shield in Eastern Europe, which it says threatens Russia's security. It is likely to link agreement on arms reductions to a pledge to scrap the project, which the US insists is aimed at rogue states such as Iran.

President Obama has refused to ditch the shield so far. Instead, he has urged Russia to help make it unnecessary by working with the US to tackle Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Tensions also continue over Russia's war with Georgia last August. The US accused Russia of breaching the peace agreement that ended the war after the Kremlin sent troops to take control of border security in Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia last month.

Russia announced that it would expand military exercises planned for next month across the North Caucasus region in response to Nato war games currently taking place in Georgia. It said that the large-scale exercises would be "comparable to those held during the Soviet Union".

The START treaty was signed by US President George H W Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles to no more than 6,000 warheads each, compared to a Cold War peak of 30,000.

That was followed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which limited both sides to a maximum of 2,200 warheads by 2012. Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev have set their negotiators the task of reducing strategic weaponry below this level.

The US currently has 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads deployed and Russia 2,800. Experts believe that they are willing to go down to 1,500 each, although The Times disclosed in February that Mr Obama was ready to seek even more radical cuts to 1,000 warheads each.

Mr Medvedev said during a recent visit to Finland that he wanted the new treaty to "limit the delivery systems of the nuclear warheads and not only the quantity of warheads themselves". He also demanded safeguards against a build up of conventional forces to compensate for a loss of nuclear weapons.

Mr Obama set out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, in April. He said that arms reductions should be accompanied by tougher rules to deal with countries that break the existing nuclear non-proliferation framework, such as Iran and North Korea.

[vector7]

From Times Online
May 20, 2009
US missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic 'won't stop Iran'
Tom Baldwin in Washington

Proposals to build a US missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic will be ineffective in protecting Europe from a possible Iranian attack, a study by American and Russian scientists has concluded.

The report, from the EastWest Institute think tank, may further dampen President Obama's enthusiasm for Bush-era plans for a shield that has caused alarm and annoyance in Moscow.

Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said that the administration was still reviewing policy on missile defence which Mr Obama has said must be cost-effective and proven to work.

The report suggested Iran was at least five years away from acquiring long range nuclear missiles but added that, in any case, US interceptors could be easily fooled by decoys and other simple counter-measures.

Related Links

* US and Russia start nuclear weapons bargaining
* US wants Czech missile base
* Missile shield 'won't protect Europe from Iran'

The EastWest Institute's findings were reviewed by former US defence secretary William Perry before being presented to both US and Russian governments.

Mr Perry joined former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, and ex-Senator Sam Nunn at the White house for discussions with Mr Obama on nuclear non-proliferation.