New ICBM already over budget - “The U.S. Air Force’s program to develop and field a new intercontinental ballistic missile to replace aging Minuteman III weapons is stalled over Pentagon concerns the service underestimated the cost by billions of dollars, according to a defense official familiar with the program. The service is grappling with a substantial gap between the cost estimate its officials prepared for an Aug. 3 meeting of the Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition Board and one crafted by the department’s office of independent cost assessment,” writes Anthony Capaccio for Bloomberg.

--“The uncertainty over costs stems from the fact that the U.S. has not built new ICBMs, which are designed to carry nuclear warheads, for decades. The funding dilemma will likely add to debate over whether coming administrations can afford a ‘bow wave’ of surging nuclear and non-nuclear weapons spending after 2021. Nuclear spending alone could surpass $1 trillion over 30 years if operations, support and construction are included.” Full story here. http://bloom.bg/2bnO7ig [1]

Judgment day for Obama’s nuclear legacy - “More people are discussing the dangers of nuclear use now than at any moment in the past six years,” writes Joe Cirincione for Defense One. “Thanks to Trump’s reported question to his briefers, ‘Why do we have nuclear weapons if we can’t use them?’ millions of Americans have suddenly learned that the U.S. president can launch Armageddon without any check or balance.”

--“Hardly inspiring, but the public’s distrust is fully warranted. It’s not just a crazy president; it’s our crazy nuclear policy that puts us at risk. There have been scores of near-misses and almost wars over the past 71 years… No matter who is elected in November, these weapons and policies pose unacceptable dangers. Obama should do all he can to ensure that no single person will say “hasta la vista, baby” to all of human civilization.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/2bjqw5g [2]

Benefits of no first use - “Throughout the nuclear age, presidents have allowed their senior commanders to plan for the first use of nuclear weapons,” write former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright and Bruce Blair for The New York Times. “Ruling out first use would… bring myriad benefits. To start, it would reduce the risk of a first strike against us during global crises. Leaders of other countries would be calmed by the knowledge that the United States viewed its own weapons as deterrents to nuclear warfare, not as tools of aggression.”

--“A no-first-use policy would also reduce the risks of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. By scrapping the vulnerable land-based missile force, any need for launching on warning disappears. Strategic bombers can be sent aloft on warning of an apparent incoming attack, which may or may not be a false alarm, and stay up until the situation clarifies. Strategic submarines are extremely survivable and exert no pressure on decision-makers to fire them quickly… President Obama has an opportunity to further delegitimize nuclear weapons by adopting no-first-use as a core principle of United States security policy on the grounds that first-use is unnecessary and a threat to national survival and humanity itself.” Full piece here. http://nyti.ms/2bxhstP [3]

Take the B61 out of Europe - “We feel strongly... that there is a case to be made for the immediate removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and freeing the squadrons designated to deliver them for use strictly in conventional roles. First and foremost, the tactical weapons have no military utility, and, because the likelihood of their use is extremely low, their presumed political value is a chimera. This option might have made sense during the Cold War, but is unrealistic in today’s security environment,” write Barry Blechman and Laicie Heeley in a new report for the Stimson Center. Read the full report here. http://bit.ly/2bCwHmw [4]

Test ban support is not end run - “President Barack Obama is pursuing UN Security Council support for a resolution to reinforce the norm against nuclear testing. The proposed resolution… would also support ongoing efforts to maintain the monitoring system established to detect and deter clandestine testing. Unfortunately, some Republicans in the Senate… erroneously allege that the initiative would ‘cede the Senate’s constitutional role’ on advice and consent of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). They are flat out wrong,” writes Daryl Kimball for The National Interest. Full piece here. http://bit.ly/2baiLem [5]

Quick Hits:

--“With one word, Congress looks to change a legacy of nuclear defense,” by Karoun Demirjian for The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/2bcCRVO [6]

--“Will South Korea go nuclear?” by Robert Einhorn and Duyeon Kim for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://bit.ly/2aXw8hw [7]

--“The US Considered Hiding Nuclear Weapons In Iceland (And Not Telling Iceland),” by Matt Novak for Gizmodo. http://bit.ly/2aXwtRB [8]

--“Nuclear Orthodoxy After Trump,” by Michael Krepon for Foreign Affairs. http://fam.ag/2bkphDR [9]

Events:

--International Day Against Nuclear Tests, August 29. http://bit.ly/YGJsRd [10]

--Screening of Command and Control, September 23 through 29 at the Landmark Theatres E Street Cinema, 555 11th St. NW, Washington. http://bit.ly/2aXwKFZ [11]

--20th anniversary of the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on September 24.