Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Kevin Baron
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 - 5:27 PM
The Pentagon announced on Wednesday it was sending the mobile, land-based missile defense system THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) to Guam. It’s the latest sign the U.S. believes North Korea may indeed launch a missile -- perhaps even a nuclear-tipped missile -- across the Western Pacific at a U.S. military target.
The truck-mounted missile system is designed to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles within 250 kilometers, serving as an umbrella system for large theaters of operation. It is also able to target missiles outside the atmosphere, giving it a higher range than the Patriot system.
But THAAD is yet another Pentagon missile defense system that defense and industry officials praise but arms critics shred as unreliable and unready for action. According to GlobalSecurity.org, only two of six planned batteries were certified for “initial operational capacity” in fiscal 2012, which is a lower state of readiness than “full operational capacity.” Further testing required by the Army’s own guidelines is scheduled into 2017, delaying “full material release” of the batteries to the Army.
“THAAD is operationally effective against short-range ballistic missile threats of the types tested through the end of 2012. It has not been demonstrated against medium-range threats,” the group found. But based on initial testing the group believes THADD is “likely” effective against medium-range missiles and is therefore “operationally suitable,” but “limited.”
Its deployment follows Hagel’s announcement that the Pentagon would spend $1 billion to increase the number of controversial ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles based in Alaska, even though the last successful test of that system was in 2008.
A Pentagon statement described the decision to deploy THAAD to Guam as only “a precautionary move to strengthen our regional defense posture against the North Korean regional ballistic missile threat.”
But weapons guru John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said the THAAD system was still stuck somewhere in between test-phase and actual operational readiness. Pike said it reminded him of the 1950s when unproven nuclear bombs in the U.S. testing program were being classified as “EC” which stood for “emergency capability.”
“I think THAAD right now is an EC,” Pike said, in an interview. It’s a defense, he argued, that “had been known to work on occasions -- might work -- better safe than sorry, better something than nothing.”
By now, Pike said he is worried North Korea has painted itself into a corner situation where it must make good on its threats or risk losing face and credibility. Sending a nuclear bomb over Guam is not implausible, which makes the Pentagon’s decision to deploy the THAAD anti-missile system “only sensible.”
“Possession of nuclear weapons implies a willingness to use them,” Pike said. “If the North Korean leadership felt that a demonstration test against a military target would be of some value, an airburst over Guam would be on the short list.” An air burst is a detonation of a bomb in the air at altitude, rather than near or at ground level.
But Pike questioned why the Pentagon announcement said the mobile system would be deployed “in the coming weeks” when the North Korean threat seems imminent.
“I don’t understand what the hold-up is. The party’s going to be over by then,” he said. “I’d rather hear ‘in the coming days.’”
Defense officials would not elaborate on the timeline of THAAD’s arrival in Guam beyond the DOD statement, saying it was meant to be a vague window in order to mask the timeline of when then the system becomes operational on-site.
Still, Pike is watching westward, fearing something is coming the way of U.S. military bases.
“The North Koreans have run out of [non-] kinetic provocations, haven’t they? I mean, how many times can you declare war?” he said. “If they don’t start shooting within the next week or 10 days, everybody’s going to say they’re a bunch of chickens, that they can talk the talk but they’re not willing to walk the walk, aren’t they? And they’re going to say of Kim Jong-Un, he don’t know how to run nothing but his mouth,” to paraphrase a classic Marion Barry quote.
But even for a hardware expert like Pike, the U.S. solution does not lie in deploying more weapons. South Korea and the Americans, he argued, “can take it up the escalation ladder as far as the North wants to go.” The thing that could change North Korea’s tune, he said, is China.
“The North would run out of rubble to bounce before the Americans would run out of hydrogen bombs.”
U.S. Army photo
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, March 8, 2013 - 12:43 PM
But what about when Kim Jong-Un threatens the world with outright nuclear war? That’s a new one, peninsula watchers are warning. According to current and former DOD officials, however, the answer is not as exciting as one might think.
“We are always ready to go to war on the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours,” said one former Defense Department official, who spoke to the E-Ring anonymously to discuss sensitive information.
It turns out, that's the boring truth.
“No change -- routinely have AEGIS ships throughout the [area of responsibility] -- have not altered threat level and repositioned ships,” said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, in an email.
That’s pretty much the stock answer from most military commands following any North Korean bluster, including the purposeful mention of AEGIS ships. Those are cruisers and destroyers equipped with the AEGIS Combat System, aka missile defense. The ships are the mobile, sea-based leg of the U.S.’s defense against ballistic missiles, which is how North Korea likely would be delivering a nuclear warhead outside of its borders to nearby targets.
Inside the Pentagon, the former DOD official said typically following a North Korean threat there is a lot of “intelligence churn” to see if any movements on the ground match the rhetoric. But the U.S. military does not have to move big weapons, ships, aircraft, nor change alert levels.
“There’s a difference between somebody saying we’re going to nuke you, and somebody saying we’re going to nuke you, and then our satellites noticing missiles on the move,” the official said.
“The thing to keep in mind with the North Korea situation is … we are always postured as if the balloon could go up within a matter of minutes. If we actually needed to be moving big heavy things around, that would actually indicate we had some serious problems with being postured correctly.”
What the military does depends on what the intelligence community actually sees.
“It depends on what has actually happened. We don’t just jump up and down because somebody says something,” the official said. Intelligence eyes are watching to determine “how the rhetoric is actually feeding activity, or whether the rhetoric is intended for domestic political consumption.”
The intelligence then fuels the response in Washington, which includes a wide inter-agency effort that has been war-gamed for years.
“Is there a playbook that we could pull off the shelf that provides all sorts of options? Yes. Is it automatic: we see A and we’re going to B? No, nor should it be,” the official explained.
Whatever the U.S. military response may be, it is always intentional. North Korea cannot see far asea naval movements, the official said, but China can. One option in the playbook is to move U.S. military assets in a way that the Chinese can see, knowing they will relay U.S. movements to the North Koreans.
Further from Washington, Pyongyang’s threat did conjure up a return volley of fighting words from various U.S. military commands.
Pacific Command (PACOM), based out of Hawaii, issued the most bellicose statement, pledging to “remain steadfast in our regional security commitments and stand ready to defend U.S. territory, our allies and our national interests.”
“We are consulting closely with our international allies and partners on next steps,” the command said in a statement provided to the E-Ring. It also said the combined forces of the U.S. and its allies can “effectively assess any North Korean provocative acts such as missile launches and nuclear testing efforts. The U.S. military closely monitors threats to international security and has the capability to respond if and when directed by the President.”
PACOM called on North Korea “to refrain from additional provocative actions that would violate its international obligations and run counter to its commitments….that might increase tensions in the region…. [and] to refrain from future missile launches, nuclear testing, and to comply fully” with United Nations Security Council resolutions.
From Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which controls the U.S. nuclear arsenal, comes this statement from Capt. Jeff Bender, chief spokesman: “U.S. Strategic Command remains steadfast in our security commitments and stands ready to defend U.S. territory, our allies, and our national interests. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely with U. S. Pacific Command partners."
KCNA VIA KNS/AFP/Getty Images
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, February 1, 2013 - 4:26 PM
Hagel’s own nuclear views, even his involvement with Global Zero, was expected to be tested in the hearing. What seemed to surprise the nominee on Thursday, however, was the obsessive focus by conservative senators on the May 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, which Hagel co-authored.
In fact, at the time of the report's release last year, Global Zero presented retired Gen. James E. Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as its chief author.
The report does present a laundry list of "illustrative next steps [that] are possible and desirable." The report repeatedly uses the phrase "illustrative steps" to refer to the actions it is, indeed, recommending. Among those steps Hagel and his co-authors put forth is unilateral reductions, though cautiously.
"The less good approach would be to adopt this agenda unilaterally. A strong case can nevertheless be made that unilateral U.S. deep cuts and de-alerting coupled with strengthened missile defenses and conventional capabilities would not weaken deterrence in practical terms vis-à-vis Russia, China or any of the more plausible nation- state challengers that America may confront in the years ahead."
Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) asked, “Why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability?” and questioned Hagel’s support for “Global Zero or whatever that group -- the organization was.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), seemed more informed and led most of the questioning, saying he was “more than a little troubled by the report that you participated in.”
“As I read the Global Zero report that you co-authored just last year, less than a year ago,” Sessions said, “you called for the elimination of all ICBMs, all tactical nuclear weapons, most of the bombers from -- I think 67 B-52s eliminated, leaving only 18 bombers and 10 submarines. So instead of 700 delivery systems that was part of the New START, it looks like you're down to about 28 delivery systems. So this is a dramatic -- I want to introduce -- a dramatic concern.”
Hagel said the report makes no recommendations, rather lays out long-term goals.
“Global Zero has been very clear on this. Their effort is in line with every major national leader in the world, including President Obama, to continue to try to make an effort to reduce our nuclear warheads.”
But Sessions was unsatisfied. “I would just say the vision stated in your Global Zero report, I believe, is likely to create instability rather than confidence and stability, create uncertainty in the world among our allies and our potential adversaries. And I do not believe it would meet the goal that you said not to weaken our ability.”
On Friday, Hagel’s co-authors -- Cartwright; Amb. Richard Burt; Amb. Thomas Pickering; and retired Gen. John J. Sheehan -- responded, saying, “Any suggestions that our positions on nuclear weapons are unilateralist or would somehow weaken the United States are wrong and irresponsible.”
The authors argued they believe disarmament would take decades and hold views clearly in the “mainstream.”
“Beyond the President of the United States, support for this goal is widespread among experienced, respected leaders from across the political spectrum -- including the hundreds of political, military, diplomatic, and national security leaders from the United States and around the world who are part of Global Zero.”
Read the entire statement here.
Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, January 25, 2013 - 5:40 PM
In a little noticed line of questioning on Thursday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the incoming ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Kerry he saw a historic and useful balance between the secretary of state, who usually argues for global nuclear reductions, and the defense secretary, whose responsibility is to maintain America’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
But Hagel’s record advocating for disarmament, argued Corker, may threaten that balance.
Corker said:
He was part of a group called Global Zero, and for those of us who care deeply about our nuclear arsenal and modernization and that type of thing, some of the things that were authored in this report candidly are [just] concerning.
Typically, there's a tension. The Defense Department presses for weaponry and making sure that our country is safe. The State Department presses for nuclear arms agreements and reductions. And so in the event this person is confirmed, that balance is not going to be there.
But then Corker got to the meat of the matter, which affects his home state of Tennessee: modernization. In nuclear parlance, the word is a euphemism for the expensive upkeep for America’s aged nuclear warheads, which is carried out at nuclear laboratories, including the Oak Ridge complex in Tennessee. There, scientists make sure the bombs work, without actually exploding them, through expensive computer modeling. The funds pay for the cost of parts and labor to keep the warheads ready for action 24 hours-a-day.
Part of the deal to secure GOP support for New START treaty ratification was the Obama administration’s promise of increased funding for modernization, at roughly $85 billion over 10 years for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
In a December 2010 letter to Obama, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the late Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pledged their support for the treaty, following his promise of full funding for modernization.
“We also ask that, in your future budget requests to Congress, you include the funding identified in that report on nuclear weapons modernization,” they wrote.
Obama, in a reply, said he would invest in nuclear modernization for the long-term. “That is my commitment to the Congress.”
But Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget request came in short of the full funding. Conservatives accuse the president of pulling a “bait-and-switch,” figuring Obama’s five-year request is $4 billion short of his promise.
On Wednesday, Corker pressed the issue with Kerry:
You and I have spent a lot of time on the START treaty. I helped you in that effort. You let me be involved in the ratification. Modernization was to take place at a pace that is not occurring. And I'm just wondering if there's something you might say to me that sees our future in a way that with these -- with the combination of possibly these two people, one leading the State Department but one leading the Defense Department in a role that's been very different than previous defense leaders -- is there something you can say to assure me about our nuclear posture in the future and the role that you're going to play in that regard?
Kerry, in his response, said he believes “we have to maintain” the stockpiles with which Corker is concerned:
When that initiative sort of first came out and we began to hear about the potential of people who said let's get no nuclear weapons, I sort of scratched my head. And I said, what? You know, how's that going to work? Because I believe in deterrence, and I find it very hard to think how you can get down to a number in today's world.
But the whole point is, they're not talking about today's world. Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, I think Jim Schlesinger, former secretaries of defense, many others, have all agreed with that as a goal for the world. It's a goal. It's an aspiration. And we should always be aspirational. But it's not something that could happen in today's world, and nor could any leader today sit here or in any other chair and promote to you the notion that we ought to be cutting down our deterrent level below an adequate level to maintain deterrence.
Now, the military has very strong views about what that is. We've cut down some 1,500 now. There's talk of going down to a lower number. I think personally it's possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, etc.
Now, Senator, I know you're deeply invested in that component of it, the nuclear stockpile [proposal]. And I may -- we can come to some of that maybe later in the he hearing here. But I believe we have to maintain that because that's the only way you maintain an effective level of deterrence.
And the Russians certainly are thinking in terms of their adequacy of deterrence, which is one of the reasons why they have missile defense concerns.
So I'm -- I don't think Senator Hagel is sitting there or he's going to go over to the Defense Department and be a proponent -- you know, this is talking about conflict revolution [Resolution?], change -- resolution, changes that have to take pace in societies that we'll -- you know, it's worth aspiring to, but we'll be lucky if we get there in however many centuries the way we're going.
Kerry said later that informal talks with Russia are ongoing about future nuclear reductions. No deal is likely to be done without the approval of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the head of Strategic Command, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, and of course, the defense secretary (all of whom testified in favor of New START).
Hagel will speak on his own defense Thursday, in his hearing.
“I believe the nuclear issue will come up,” said one key Hill staffer.
The E-Ring asked another Senate staffer if Hagel is likely to face the similar questions to the ones Corker posed to Kerry. The blunt response by email: “Yes def.”
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, January 25, 2013 - 3:13 PM
No really, in response to a low but sustained murmur of conservative attacks on Chuck Hagel’s previous support for reducing the number of nuclear weapons, Team Hagel now has an “Atomic War Room.”
“Team Hagel is planning a full scale defense of the senator's record on nuclear issues,” said an official close to the confirmation team. “Some have wrongly suggested that he wants to unilaterally close America's nuclear arsenal. Nothing could be further from the truth. He firmly believes in a strong nuclear deterrent as long as we face nuclear threats.”
Hagel’s team has already said they were going on the attack. They defended Hagel’s nuclear record as one point of a seven-point myths vs. realties fact sheet released two weeks ago.
So why now? Are nuclear issues that big of a worry for Team Hagel? Or are they just trying to get out ahead of conservative senators, who seem to be running out of anti-Hagel ammunition? Worries of Hagel’s support for Israel and gay rights have come and gone. But nuclear issues -- fully funding nuclear labs and construction of new delivery vehicles like submarines and the next long-range bomber -- may get more play in Hagel’s confirmation hearing next Thursday. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) faced several nuclear-related questions in his own confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
Either way, President Obama has made nuclear issues and disarmament a foreign policy priority. But his verve for the issue has never been picked up and matched by his first two Pentagon chiefs, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
With Hagel, Obama has picked a SecDef who spent the last few years advocating for disarmament.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, January 18, 2013 - 6:00 PM
The secretary general has been an early-and-often advocate for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, predating his term in office. But in a sweeping review, Ban described his efforts and the disarmament movement at large in bleak terms.
“As I look at the disarmament landscape, my feelings are mixed,” Ban said, at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “Nuclear disarmament progress is off track.”
Without citing Iran or other countries, Ban said world leaders have become too focused on the spread of nuclear weapons instead of their dismantling.
“Our aim must be more than keeping the deadliest of weapons from ‘falling into the wrong hands.’ There are no right hands for wrong weapons.”
Ban also pressed military strategists to reconsider the purpose of keeping their stockpiles.
“I urge all nuclear-armed States to reconsider their national nuclear posture. Nuclear deterrence is not a solution to international peace and stability. It is an obstacle.”
In the U.S., arms control watchers hope the Obama administration, with support from Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, will enter into new talks with Russia on reductions. Conservatives in Congress have expressed their fear that Hagel would back so-called unilateral nuclear reductions -- meaning the U.S. would cut its stocks without a commitment from Russia to do the same.
“I was surprised to see him be fairly blunt,” said Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director at the institute and former special advisor to Vice President Joe Biden for nuclear security. Wolfsthal said Ban’s speech may not necessarily help or hurt Obama’s efforts with opponents in Congress, but certainly reflects a want to see progress soon.
“I think there is a pent up desire to see more aggressive action,” he said, and the hope among arms control community is that the Obama administration is ready to take on disarmament.
Without mentioning either country, Ban on Friday argued that nuclear states should take their own initiative to reduce their arsenals. “My advice, my appeal to all, is this: Be a first mover. Don’t look to others or to your neighbors to start disarmament and arms control measures. If you take the lead, others will follow.”
“I think there’s a very good chance the administration is going to set our requirement for nuclear weapons lower than it currently stands,” Wolfsthal said, and take that number to the Russians to see if they’ll meet the U.S. at lower levels.
Ban has a long personal history on disarmament. He was vice-chair of the South-North Korea Joint Nuclear Control Commission in 1992, and he chaired a 1999 panel on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. “As United Nations Secretary-General, one of my first decisions was to restructure our disarmament office and re-energize its work,” he said.
Ban laid the nuclear dilemma at the feet of national security planners, roughly less than one month before the president typically releases the annual federal budget request to Congress.
“The world spends more on the military in one month than it does on development all year,” he argued. “And four hours of military spending is equal to the total budgets of all international disarmament and non-proliferation organizations combined. The world is over-armed. Peace is under-funded. Bloated military budgets promote proliferation, derail arms control, doom disarmament and detract from social and economic development. The profits of the arms industry are built on the suffering of ordinary people -- in Mali, Syria, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“At the foot of the pyramid lie small arms. At the top are nuclear weapons. I will continue to use my moral authority and convening power to advocate for disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security.”
John Moore/Getty Images)
Posted By Kevin Baron
Friday, January 11, 2013 - 10:46 AM
The 2013 nuclear agenda could be quite full. The Pentagon has yet to release its plan to implement the Nuclear Posture Review, and amid continuing resolutions funding the fiscal year and the sequester-delayed budget request for 2014, the new defense secretary must decide the pace of building new nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. Additionally, the Obama administration is poised to start pushing below the caps established by the New START treaty, which limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 warheads each. With that agenda already penciled in, Hagel’s nomination has both thrilled nuclear disarmament advocates and concerned nuclear hawks in Congress.
Conservatives already have tried to block Hagel’s path to the Pentagon by labeling him soft on Israel, Iran, and war in general. And now they're trying a new angle: he’s soft on nuclear weapons.
On the day President Obama announced Hagel’s nomination, the leading conservative voice on nuclear issues in the House, Rep. Mike Turner, sent a blast email to reporters claiming Hagel’s positions were “fundamentally at odds with mainstream thinking and the President's stated policies.”
Turner accused Hagel of having a “dangerous ideological agenda,” arguing, “This includes calls for drastic, and possibly unilateral, reductions in U.S. nuclear forces, eliminating the [intercontinental ballistic missile] leg of our nuclear deterrent and cancelling our other nuclear modernization programs.”
That’s a questionable charge by Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the previous Congress. When Hagel and Obama were senators in 2007, the two were close enough to cosponsor legislation that some nuclear watchdogs say was the “blueprint” to the president’s famous Prague speech, in which Obama called for a renewed focus on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. That speech came early in Obama’s presidency, in April 2009.
That year, after leaving the Senate, Hagel involved himself in the disarmament movement by joining the board of the Ploughshares Fund and the group Global Zero.
“We value his leadership on smart, bipartisan solutions to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, and applaud the President’s choice,” said Ploughshares’ chairman, Roger Hale, in a statement. “Sen. Hagel’s commitment to reducing nuclear dangers -- both in the Senate and in the years since -- sets him apart as one of America’s most insightful and effective voices on nuclear security.”
But not apart from the president, Hagel supporters insist.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday said he had dinner with Hagel and a follow-up lunch specifically on the defense budget this week. At a Pentagon press briefing, Panetta argued Hagel will have no trouble implementing the president’s nuclear policy.
“There’s no question in my mind,” Panetta said, of the nuclear concerns. “I’ve known Chuck Hagel a long time. I think a lot of the criticisms that are being made right now are unfair, but he’ll have the opportunity to speak to those when he goes for his confirmation hearing…. There are a lot of charges that will be out there. There’ll be a lot of criticisms that are out there but ultimately the truth prevails, and I think the truth in this case will mean that he’ll be confirmed.”
Ploughshares Fund argues that Hagel represents a “growing bipartisan” movement on nuclear reduction. When he was at the Atlantic Council, Hagel “joined with Gen. James Cartwright, Amb. Richard Burt, Amb. Thomas Pickering, Gen. Jack Sheehan and Dr. Bruce Blair in practical recommendations for the 2012 study, Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force Structure and Posture.”
Other advocates agree. “There is a mainstream point of view” on nuclear arms reductions, said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, which advocates for fewer nuclear weapons. A 2012 Pentagon white paper already has called specifically for a smaller nuclear force, Kimball said.
Hagel is therefore more likely to oversee the enactment of the Obama administration’s already crafted nuclear policy than he is expected to drastically alter it. He’ll work directly with Obama’s team of Pentagon, State Department, and White House national security staffers, led by Under Secretary of Defense Jim Miller, the Pentagon’s top policy official; Acting Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller; and Gary Samore, the White House’s point man for weapons of mass destruction.
“Hagel will be part of that equation as Washington and Moscow try to go forward to try and go beyond New START,” Kimball said.
It’s what reduction advocates call “right-sizing” the nuclear force, and Hagel could be in charge of making some early budget decisions this year. For one, how many new nuclear submarines will DOD produce? The Pentagon plans to replace a dozen Ohio-class submarines at upwards of $7 billion each, or by some estimates, $350 billion over the life of that program. Last year, the Pentagon delayed the build of one of two submarines by two years, angering defense hawks on the Hill. Additionally, the Pentagon is still developing the next long-range bomber, at a hit of an estimated $55 billion -- a cost which critics argue is sure to go up, if past is prologue for military aircraft production.
So how many warheads, submarines, bombers, and missiles are enough? Russia is the only other country with enough nuclear weapons to challenge the U.S. arsenal, yet arms trackers say Russia’s arsenal is likely going to shrink because of cost. “The last I heard, the Cold War is over. We’re no longer enemies. There’s virtually no chance of a bolt from the blue,” Kimball said.
One common concern of hawks like Turner is that the Obama administration, with Hagel’s blessing, would enact “unilateral nuclear reductions.” But Obama has not advocated that position.
The good news for Hagel is that Congressman Turner has no vote in the Senate. But Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the new ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, does.
“Yes, nuclear issues are one of the few areas of concern that Sen. Inhofe will be speaking with Sen. Hagel about,” a Senate aide told the E-Ring. Inhofe currently is on an overseas congressional delegation visit to Asia.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Hagel. “I’m going to withhold judgment for now and rely on the hearings and meetings in making my determination," Corker said. "I’m sure Senator Hagel’s views on nuclear arms issues will receive significant scrutiny as he goes through the confirmation process. I served with him in the Senate and respect his military background and willingness to serve our country in such an important role.”
UPDATED: This piece was updated to correct a previous version. Sen. Corker has not endorsed Hagel.
Dave Fliesen/U.S. Navy via Getty Images
Posted By Kevin Baron
Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 2:36 PM
During ongoing floor debate of the Senate’s fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, New Hampshire’s Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said she endorsed language in the House-passed bill authorizing the Pentagon to spend $100 million to study locations in the northeast United States for ICMB missile defenses. That provision was a surprise addition when the House bill emerged from the House Armed Services Committee and survived floor debate.
Ayotte introduced an amendment with similar language and immediately withdrew it before a vote, instead offering her verbal support for the House bill. Ayotte argued Iran could develop a nuclear-tipped, long-range missile that could reach the United States. U.S. defenses currently would not allow for a defensive knock-down and counterattack, she argued.
“I think this is deeply troubling and we should be developing that capacity.”
Ayotte said the National Research Council recommended an additional ballistic missile site in the Northeast. “particularly against Iranian ICBM threats,s hould they emerg.” That report, however, was funded by the Missile Defense Agency and concluded the U.S. should not try to invest in defenses that attempt to strike missiles as they launch, rather ones that would have better luck with set up back on U.S. soil to catch missiles as they’re further in flight.
Ayotte also argued “some analysts” believe Iran “could develop that capacity” of long-range missiles by 2015. “I can’t imagine why we wouldn’t want to be in a position to make sure that the east coast of our country would be as protected as the West coast,” Ayotte said, specifically of Iran, which she argued was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Intelligence officials have testified this year that they believe Iran has not yet decided to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) backed Ayotte but spoke more to the U.S. inability to defend against an “accidental” launch of Chinese or Russian ICBMs that already can reach the East Coast.
“Wars can be started almost by accident and the best protection against that is a missile defense system that ensures no harm isdone,” Kyl said. “We have a moral responsibility and it makes strategic sense…because of the critical vulnerability that we have right now.”
Senate debate on the defense authorization bill is expected to continue for two more days.
YURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images
Posted By Kevin Baron, Gordon Lubold
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 1:50 PM
Pentagon policy chief Jim Miller said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warning this week that Iran would have nearly enough bomb-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon in six months does not change the U.S. assessment of the need for military action.
Miller, under secretary of defense for policy, in an exclusive interview with the FP National Security channel on Wednesday, said that enrichment was just one factor in the U.S. calculation of how long it would take for Iran to have a working nuclear bomb.
"The timeline, from our perspective, includes the question of how long it takes to enrich, and then how long it would take to go from a certain level of enrichment to weapons grade, and other steps in that process," Miller said. "And so, as we look at that potential timeline we certainly believe, as I said, that we have time."
On Sunday, as part of a blitz of U.S. media appearances, Netanyahu told CNN, "They're moving very rapidly, completing the enrichment of the uranium they need to produce a nuclear bomb. In six months or so they'll be 90 percent of the way there. I think it's important to place a red line before Iran."
But two days earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Foreign Policy in an exclusive interview that U.S. and other intelligence agencies, including Israel's, agree that despite Iran's enrichment activities, Iranian leaders have not made the decision to pursue a bomb.
Miller would not distinguish which was the bigger threat, Iran reaching the capability for a potential bomb -- via enrichment -- or making the decision to try to build one.
"What intelligence basically tells us now is that they have not made that decision," Panetta said. "And that while they continue to do enrichment, they have not made a decision to proceed with a nuclear weapon. And I have to tell you that I think the intelligence community, whether it's Israeli intelligence or United States intelligence, has pretty much the same view."
U.S. intelligence officials believe they have one year to 18 months from that decision-point before Iran has bomb -- implying the Pentagon (or anyone else) has that long to attempt a preventive strike.
Netanyahu, however, cautioned against relying too much on U.S. or Israeli intelligence forecasts: "We've also had our failures, both of us. You know, you've just marked 9/11. That wasn't seen. None of us, neither Israel or the United States, saw Iran building this massive nuclear bunker under a mountain. For two years they proceed without our knowledge. So I think the one thing we do know is what they're doing right now. We know that they're enriching this material. We know that in the six, seven months they'll have got to covered 90 percent of the way for an atomic bomb material. And I think that we should count on the things that we do know in setting the red line."
Miller also threw his support behind the sanctions, which he argued are having adverse effects in Iran. "It may take some time before the Supreme Leader, before Iran makes the calculation," he said, of whether to give up its nuclear program or pursue the bomb.
On Wednesday, Miller toed the Obama administration line: "As we look at the intelligence, we believe that we have time and space to accomplish that, and the timeline that Secretary Panetta talked about is precisely right."
This week, Fereydoun Abbasi, chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, reportedly said Iran does not intend to enrich uranium beyond 20 percent, to the degree that would be required to build a bomb. Abbasi said the limited stocks of uranium Iran has enriched to 20 percent were for radiological medicinal purposes.
Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images
Kevin Baron reports on the people and policies driving the Pentagon and the national security establishment in The E-Ring.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
