Cost, Requirements, and the New Nuclear Sub

On the radar: Navy strains to meet sub requirements on pinched budget; Revising the requirements; IAEA going high-level with Iran; the Sequestered nuclear arsenal; Thielmann on the IAEA report; NATO's incredible strategy; Diplomacy with Iran; Questioning nuke spending; and Military cuts “might get us nuked.”

November 17, 2011 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

Navy: no savings in sub budget - The Navy is pushing back against OMB’s recommendation to cuts costs by reducing the SSBN(X) buy from 12 to 10. “If you put in more [missile launch] tubes, that raises the cost. If you engineer the boats to a high enough standard to allow them to stay at sea you spend so much that you obviate whatever savings you might incur from reducing the size of the fleet,” a Navy official said. http://owl.li/7wIi2

Revisiting Cold War “requirements” - The Navy says it needs 12 subs to fulfil the requirement of having 5 on station at all times. “This “requirement” stems from nuclear policy and targeting assumptions that have changed little since the Cold War ended 20 years ago. It does not make sense today,” argues Tom Collina. “Instead of forward-deploying our subs ready for prompt launch, they should be kept out of harm’s way, as an assured retaliatory force if ever needed. If prompt launch is still required, land-based missiles can serve that mission.”

--The debate over the number of subs highlights the need for a strategic review of nuclear policy, Collina says. “Pentagon procurement decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars should not be based on obsolete nuclear strategy. By the time the first new submarine is launched twenty years from now, it could be sailing into a very different world.” http://owl.li/7vZpg

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

IAEA seeks mission to Iran - IAEA Director Yukiya Amano wants to send a high-level mission to investigate Iran’s nuclear program. “I ask Iran to engage substantively, without delay and provide the requested clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to its nuclear program," Amano told the Board of Governors. Iran has yet to respond to the request, The New York Times reports. http://owl.li/7wIpR

”Deterrence under sequestration” - Secretary Panetta sent a “heartburn” letter to Sens. McCain and Graham on the possible outcomes of budget sequestration on the defense department - including ending the F-35, postponing acquiring a new bomb, trimming the number of new nuclear submarines, and eliminating the ICBM leg of the triad. Jeff Lewis asks, “From simply the standpoint of nuclear deterrence, how bad would sequestration be?”

--”The resulting force could total 1,596 nuclear weapons...we would have no trouble staying at New START levels,” notes Lewis. “Don’t get me wrong, sequestration is a dumb way to reduce the nuclear force. (It would have been better to negotiate these reductions with Russia, for instance.) But it isn’t clear to me it is a particularly dangerous way to do it,” he concludes. http://owl.li/7vZq2

After the IAEA Report - “The [latest IAEA] report confirms that Iran is nuclear-capable, but not nuclear-armed. It underscores the fact that the best way to turn Iran away from the nuclear weapons path is still through further international pressure and active U.S.-led diplomatic engagement,” writes Greg Thielmann in the Des Moines Register.

--”Washington and other responsible governments should use the report to rally international support for getting Iran to answer the agency questions and suspend sensitive nuclear activities.” http://owl.li/7wIuI

NATO’s nukes - From the latest Arms Control Today, “NATO's Incredible Nuclear Strategy: Why U.S. Weapons in Europe Deter No One,” by Edmon Seay, principal arms control advisor for the US Ambassador to NATO 2009-11.

--”For operational, political, economic, and nonproliferation reasons, NATO needs to agree to the removal of the remaining U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. Only NATO publics and governments can make that happen. Governments that care about this issue need to lobby fellow NATO members before, during, and after the 2012 Chicago summit, while publics need to demand greater transparency on discussions of nuclear posture and policy, both nationally and throughout NATO.” http://owl.li/7wIx4

Diplomacy still the best option - “It's tempting, and perhaps comforting, to imagine that the United States can solve this problem through the use of its awesome military forces, but it cannot. The costs of military action far outweigh the limited (at best) benefits,” writes Matt Duss in US News.

--”Beating the diplomacy drums may not be as satisfying to some as beating the war drums, but it remains the most effective way to protect the United States and strengthen international resolve toward changing Iran's behavior and constraining its nuclear development.” http://owl.li/7wIre

Debating the budget - The GOP presidential debate overlooked a crucial question: the future of US nuclear weapons policy. “At the very least America ought to have an informed debate about our nuclear weapons policy and what level of spending makes sense for national security today,” writes Kathy Crandall Robinson in The Hill. http://owl.li/7wIz1

Mountains - An attack on Iran would have severe consequences, as several military thinkers have argued. GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain has a different take. “If you look at the topography of Iran. Where are you going to strike? It’s very mountainous. That’s what makes it very difficult,” said Cain. Ben Armbruster has the story. http://owl.li/7wIB1

Panetta’s Budget warnings - “If you haven't been following Washington's agonizing debate over the defense budget, let us summarize it for you: Cutting the Pentagon's allowance will kill your grandmother,” writes Spencer Ackerman for Danger Room.

--“The cuts would "Eliminate [the] ICBM leg of Triad," Panetta wrote to Sen. John McCain on Monday. Is this likely under a 10-year budget sequestration? “No. Just — no,” writes Ackerman. http://owl.li/7wJwM.