Landscape After Midterm Elections Remains Uncertain

Featured Image

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

Stories we're following today: Tuesday November 2, 2010.

What Changes After Tuesday? - Megan Scully in “National Security” a National Journal Blog [link]

  • With Tuesday's midterm elections putting Democrats' control of the House in jeopardy and likely adding several Republican seats in the Senate, the outcome could have long-lasting repercussions on how Capitol Hill addresses national security issues.
  • The election comes just one month before the White House will formally review its Afghanistan strategy -- and President Obama has made it clear that he wants to start reducing the size of the U.S. force there in July. At the same time, the Pentagon has launched an "efficiencies initiative" to trim more than $100 billion from its budget over the next five years and redirect that money to higher-priority items.
  • Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to sell the New START arms-reduction treaty with Russia to the Senate, which is yet to bring the historic agreement to the floor for approval.
  • It has long been unclear whether the Senate has the 67 votes necessary to approve the treaty. Also unclear is whether the treaty would come to the floor during a lame-duck session.

A Plan B for Obama: Dump The Nukes - Joe Cirincione in Foreign Policy [link]

  • Barack Obama needs to get real about actual cuts in America's still-enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons -- or his nuclear legacy won't even match that of Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush.
  • Delay is dangerous. It threatens other planned efforts, including nuclear-test bans and a global lockup of all weapons materials. And it will create diplomatic havoc.
  • But Obama can regain momentum by executing reductions that don't depend on Russia or the Senate.
  • Obama should begin by taking limited measures: disclose how many weapons the United States has in its nuclear stockpile, step up the pace of dismantlement of the estimated 4,200 excess bombs (Bill Clinton took apart about 1,000 a year, George W. Bush just 300, and Obama could get to 450 easily), and immediately cut the deployed strategic weapons to 1,550, instead of waiting the seven years the New START treaty allows.
  • Then it's time for bold moves: Obama should unilaterally reduce the active U.S. arsenal to 1,000 weapons (which is still three times more than U.S. Air Force experts judge are necessary) and remove the 200 U.S. nuclear bombs that remain in Europe.
  • Such cuts won't hurt U.S. or global security in the least -- and Obama has plenty of bipartisan, expert support for cuts of this size. They would put him on the road to fulfilling his compelling promise of a truly nuclear-free world.

Cameron and Sarkozy Hail UK-France Defense Treaties - BBC News [link]

  • David Cameron has said new treaties on defense and nuclear co-operation with France were a "new chapter" in a long history of defense cooperation.
  • A centre will be set up in the UK to develop nuclear testing technology and another in France to carry it out. Warheads will be tested by technical means to ensure their safety and effectiveness, without having to test them by explosion.
  • The leaders also confirmed plans for a joint army expeditionary force.
  • The summit comes two weeks after the UK government announced cuts to its armed forces as part of savings aimed at reducing the country's budget deficit. Under the plans £750m will be saved over four years on the Trident nuclear missile system by cutting the number of warheads.

Atom Bomb Would Be Strategic Mistake: Iran Envoy - Fredrik Dahl in Reuters [link]

  • Building nuclear bombs would be a strategic mistake for Iran, its envoy to the U.N. atomic agency said on Monday, and a leading Western expert said Tehran should be taken seriously when it insists it will not obtain such arms.
  • Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), suggested the Islamic Republic could never compete in terms of the numbers of warheads possessed by the nuclear-armed major powers.
  • He was speaking a few days after Iran said it was ready to resume negotiations with the six powers involved in efforts to defuse a long-running dispute over its nuclear program.
  • Soltanieh said Iran had called on the six powers -- the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia -- to come to the negotiating table without preconditions.

Our Chance on New START Is Slipping Away - Rizwan Ladha in The Huffington Post [link]

  • Today, November 2, is midterm election day in the US, and by nearly all credible accounts, the Republican Party seems poised to make big gains when voters go to the polls. Interestingly, this time around these victories will be based overwhelmingly on domestic issues -- namely the economy and jobs creation.
  • One shouldn't be surprised, then, to see New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) -- a treaty that nearly everyone endorses, from former Secretaries of State and Defense to the former commanders of both Strategic Air Command and STRATCOM -- getting such little attention in the run-up to these critical elections.
  • It is difficult to overstate the significant degree to which current and former policymakers have endorsed New START. Politicians on both sides of the aisle, from Senator John Kerry (D-MA and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) agree that New START will continue a legacy of mutual, phased and verifiable arms control measures that were first set out and implemented by the Reagan administration.
  • But for all its sensibility and utility as part of a long-term vision and strategy to make the world a safer place for generations to come, New START has foundered on the Senate floor. Domestic politicking, a desire on the Republican side to see the President fail, and to some degree a lingering mistrust of Russia have all presented serious obstacles to the ratification of what the Obama administration almost certainly thought would be a no-brainer.
  • As Governor Schwarzenegger so eloquently put it, "There are those in America that are trying to flex their muscles and pretend they're ballsy by saying, 'we've got to keep those nuclear weapons' ... [but] it's an idiot that says that. It's stupid to say that."

The Lighter Side

Kim Jong-Un Privately Doubting He's Crazy Enough To Run North Korea - The Onion [link]

  • In surprisingly candid remarks Thursday, Kim Jong-un, heir apparent to North Korea's highest government post, expressed doubt that he was sufficiently out of his mind to succeed his father, longtime dictator Kim Jong-il.
  • While emphasizing that he was definitely completely insane and would likely be even less stable by the time he assumed power, the younger Kim nevertheless wondered if he could ever be enough of a lunatic to replace the most unhinged leader on the planet.
  • "Obviously, I know I was handpicked because I'm super crazy," said Kim, the youngest of the 69-year-old dictator's four known children. "But my father's just so great at what he does. Did you know the people of North Korea have heard his voice exactly once, for like five seconds? How nuts is that? Honestly, I look at stuff like that and I think, 'Wow, there's just no way I can ever top Dad.'"
  • Although Kim's birthday is already recognized as a national holiday and any criticism of him is punishable by indefinite sentences in re-education camps, Kim suggested that the stress of living up to his father's insanity had been taking a toll.
  • "But I've got to prove myself to him somehow," Kim said. "He'll kill me if I don't."