Four Horsemen Discuss the Need for a Sane Nuclear Policy

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today - Monday, March 7, 2011:

Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation - George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn in The Wall Street Journal [link]

• Since the first use of nuclear weapons against Japan, neither of the superpowers, nor any other country, has used nuclear weapons in a war. A gap opened between the psychological element of deterrence and the risks most leaders were willing to incur.
• Today, the Cold War is almost 20 years behind us, but many leaders and publics cannot conceive of deterrence without a strategy of mutual assured destruction. We have written previously that reliance on this strategy is becoming increasingly hazardous. With the spread of nuclear weapons, technology, materials and know-how, there is an increasing risk that nuclear weapons will be used.
• Reducing the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles with verification to the levels set by the New Start Treaty is an important step in reducing nuclear risks. Deeper nuclear reductions and changes in nuclear force posture involving the two nations should remain a priority. Further steps must include short-range tactical nuclear weapons.
• For the United States and many other nations, existential threats relating to the very survival of the state have diminished, largely because of the end of the Cold War and the increasing realization that our common interests greatly exceed our differences. However, an accident or mistake involving nuclear weapons, or nuclear terrorism fueled by the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear know-how, is still a very real risk. An effective strategy to deal with these dangers must be developed.
• It is clear, however, that the U.S. and Russia—having led the nuclear buildup for decades—must continue to lead the build-down. The U.S. and its NATO allies, together with Russia, must begin moving away from threatening force postures and deployments including the retention of thousands of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons.
• Moving from mutual assured destruction toward a new and more stable form of deterrence with decreasing nuclear risks and an increasing measure of assured security for all nations could prevent our worst nightmare from becoming a reality, and it could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.

The Most Successful Security Pact in History - Joe Cirincione in The Huffington Post [link]

• Despite the power and allure of nuclear weapons, only nine nations in the world today have nuclear arsenals. Why aren't there more?
• The main reason: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT, which went into force 41 years ago today, has provided strong incentives for nations to give up their nuclear weapons programs -- or not pursue them in the first place. Over 30 other nations have the technological ability to make nuclear weapons, but they chose not to do so.
• A few states never signed the treaty, and only a couple of states grossly violated the treaty (North Korea and Iran). But the majority of the world has respected the bargain of the NPT. As a result, only ten states have nuclear weapons or are believed to be seeking them today -- a far cry from the 25 states forecasted decades ago.
• The U.S. and other nuclear powers must uphold their end of the bargain by reducing their nuclear arsenals. If they do not, other states over time may begin to drop their commitment to not pursue nuclear weapons.
• After 41 years of remarkable, though imperfect, success under the NPT, it's vital that we see the treaty to its conclusion: the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

US Discusses Iran Sanctions with Venezuela - AFP [link]

• US officials have "discussed" concerns that Venezuela may be breaching international sanctions on Iran, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Thursday.
• Washington is closely examining whether Venezuela's cooperation with the Islamic republic on energy issues violates international sanctions on the Tehran regime over its nuclear program, which Western powers fear is a cover to build nuclear weapons.
• The scrutiny comes after Venezuela and Iran, two major oil producers and longtime US foes, signed 11 deals in Tehran focused on energy cooperation in October.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a congressional panel Tuesday that the United States will take action if Venezuela violates international sanctions against Iran.
  

Activists Argue for Right to Protest at Y-12 - Matt Lakin in The Knoxville News Sentinel [link]

• Lentsch, a 74-year-old Catholic nun from Washburn, and a dozen other anti-nuclear protesters argue that call and international law trump federal trespassing statutes at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton will decide later this year whether they can argue that defense at their trial.
• The 13 protesters admit they willingly crossed the blue line onto federal property at Y-12 during a protest July 5. They face federal misdemeanor charges of trespassing, with a trial set for May.
• Their lawyers want to put U.S. nuclear policy on trial instead, arguing weapons production at Y-12 violates international humanitarian standards. Charles Moxley, a professor at Fordham School of Law in New York, took the stand at Friday's hearing to back up their argument.
• The International Court of Justice in Europe has called the use of nuclear weapons a violation of the age-old laws of war because of the weapons' indiscriminate destructive power and the uncontrollable nature of resulting radiation, Moxley said.
• "The policy of (nuclear) deterrence in the U.S. is that we have these weapons, and we have the right to use them," Moxley testified. "If it's unlawful to do something, it's unlawful to threaten to do something."
  

A View From The Dark Side

After New START: Moving Forward or Moving Back? - Michaela Bendikova for “The Foundry” a Heritage Foundation blog [link]

• On Tuesday, March 2, arms control experts met at The Heritage Foundation’s conference “New START: What We Now Know and What’s Next.” They discussed the lessons learned with regards to future arms control negotiations.
• [Richard] Perle concluded that the United States was better off without New START because it has the potential to limit U.S. missile defense while not addressing Russia’s manifold advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.
• Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, provided insight to future arms control negotiations of this Administration. The next arms control treaty will likely cover only numbers of delivery vehicles, not deployed nuclear warheads, in which Moscow has strategic advantage. The treaty could also restrict modernization, which would be an advantage to the Russians, since they, unlike the U.S., are engaged in a robust modernization program of their strategic forces and currently have newer systems deployed.
• In addition, the current Administration seems to be willing to sacrifice U.S. allies’ national security as well. The recent cables show that the Obama Administration provided the Russians with information about British nuclear weapons.