On the radar: Targeting a smarter, less expensive nuclear force; Nuclear details on NDAA; Strategic and fiscal logic; Notice on missile defense tech; CBI update; Dennis Ross on containment, prevention; Kuwaitis on containment; and Saudi Arabia buys a hedge.

December 14, 2011 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

Rethink nuclear spending - The U.S. is re-examining its requirements for nuclear deterrence at a time when the Pentagon is expecting to spend more on nuclear weapons while trimming its overall budget. Given this outlook, Tom Collina and Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association argue, “nuclear weapons programs that address low priority threats must be scaled back to protect more pressing national security needs.”

--”Rather than build a new, more expensive version of the nuclear triad from the 1960s, we must recognize that the world has changed. The United States can save at least $45 billion over the next 10 years and still maintain a formidable and survivable nuclear force.” Recommendations include rightsizing the sub force and delaying the new bomber. From The Hill. http://owl.li/7ZenX

Nuclear weapons policy in the NDAA - The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has an early verdict and more detailed analysis of the nuclear portions of the conference report on the NDAA. The Center says the conference report “scales back the objectionable House provisions without compromising Congress’ important oversight responsibilities over U.S. nuclear policy.” (pdf) http://owl.li/7ZeWa

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

Deterrence review makes fiscal sense - ”Scaling back plans for new and excessively large strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities makes both strategic and economic sense,” writes Kingston Reif in The Bulletin.

--“How might a fundamental revision of existing nuclear deterrence requirements save billions without compromising national security?” The Navy’s subs are a prime example, Reif shows. By moving away from Cold War-sized deterrence requirements, the Navy could reduce the tempo and costs of sub operations and buy fewer new subs while upholding its deterrence mission. http://owl.li/7Zfdp

NDAA and missile defense cooperation - The conference defense bill requires the administration to give Congress 60 days notice before sharing sensitive missile defense information with Russia.

--”The notification must include a detailed description of the information to be shared, an explanation for why such sharing is in the U.S. national security interest, an explanation of what the Russians are giving in return, and an explanation of how the administration can be sure the information won't be shared with third parties, such as Iran.” Josh Rogin has the story. http://owl.li/7Zfft

CBI sanctions update - The defense bill conference made a few small changes to the CBI sanctions amendment, including a provision for a presidential waiver on national security grounds. Other than this, the Senate language remained largely intact, Josh Rogin reports. http://owl.li/7Zf6M

Quote - “This is not about containment; it’s about prevention...I believe we still have time and space to achieve that objective,” said former Middle East advisor Dennis Ross yesterday. http://owl.li/7Zf9I

A Kuwaiti perspective on Iran - Kuwaitis don’t want Iran to get the bomb, but they also don’t believe that regime change or war will prevent that outcome, writes CFR’s Steven Cook.

--While containing Iran isn’t popular in Washington these days, Cooks says ask the Kuwaitis about it. “They don't want to live with the consequences of yet another war on their doorstep. They'd prefer to marshal the resources of the region and the United States to keep the Iranians in the proverbial box.” http://owl.li/7Zf3S

Saudi nuclear hedging - “Saudi Arabia's announcement last week that it plans to build 16 nuclear reactors with a budget of more than $100 billion raises doubts about its nuclear ambitions. These civilian reactors represent a symbolic response to Iran's nuclear development that can also serve as a prelude to a military program in the future,” writes Yoel Guzansky in the New Atlanticist. http://owl.li/7Zf1o