Obama Administration Dead Wrong on Nuclear Policy

Obama Administration Dead Wrong on Nuclear Policy

APRIL 13, 2010

This week President Obama hosts a 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC.  The summit has an admirable goal of keeping nuclear materials away from terrorists and securing all nuclear materials by 2012.  However, the Administration's recent initiatives on nuclear policy would result in less global stability, less security for the U.S. and its allies, and emboldened rogue regimes.

Troubling Nuclear Posture Review:  On April 6, 2010, the Obama Administration released a delayed Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)-a mandatory evaluation of U.S. nuclear policy, capabilities and requirements for the next five to ten years.  The NPR emphasizes the president's desire to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world.   The NPR also included problematic policy shifts.

  • The NPR suggests that the U.S. will pursue a policy by which the threat of nuclear use to deter a devastating chemical or biological attack against Americans would be taken off the table.  Members may be concerned that especially while engaged against groups such as Al Qaeda and countries that may support them, the U.S. should not take any deterrence option unilaterally off the table.  For six decades the threat of using nuclear weapons has served to prevent full-blown world wars and indeed has made the U.S. and our allies safer.  Lessening U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities would make the world more dangerous by enticing rogue groups or countries.
  • The NPR would establish a new policy of not developing any new nuclear weapons.  The administration will instead emphasize warhead life extension and the maintenance of the aging nuclear complex over the modernization of U.S. nuclear assets.  Members may be concerned that this unilateral disarmament policy would actually have the effect of incentivizing countries such as Iran and North Korea to further maintain or develop their own nuclear programs, enhancing their capabilities vis-à-vis the U.S.  By forgoing technological innovations and breakthroughs, the U.S. would also weaken its hand relative to Russia and China, which are modernizing their arsenals.
  • The NPR suggests that the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that would ban all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes.  Members may be concerned that this treaty would prevent the U.S. from developing the nuclear forces required to deal with current and future threats and leave the country with an increasingly obsolete arsenal.

Questionable New START Treaty:  President Obama and Russian President Medvedev recently reached an agreement on a follow-on to the 1991 START treaty after a year of negotiations.  The treaty, which still requires Senate ratification (67 votes), would reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals by 30 percent-and it is only the administration's first step toward their ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament.  This new START treaty raises several questions which the Administration must answer satisfactorily if the treaty is likely to gain the support of Senate Republicans.

  • Taken in conjunction with the NPR, it would seem that the Administration does not plan to truly modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal but will rather resort to piecemeal maintenance and replacement.  Will the Administration fully commit to modernizing and funding the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal and industrial complex (including new warheads, missiles and bombers) rather than relying solely on maintenance? 
  • Will the U.S. commit to continuing to provide a robust nuclear umbrella to the more than thirty-five countries that rely upon it today?
  • Will the Administration remain committed to ensuring all options are on the table to respond to a biological or chemical attack against the U.S. or our allies, as opposed to the suggestion of the president's NPR?
  • Does the treaty directly or indirectly limit the missile defense options of the U.S., as the Russians argue?  Russia's official statement says the treaty contains a "legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons," and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that Russia could even withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. proceeds with plans for missile defenses in Europe.
  • Does the treaty limit U.S. conventional weapons, such as bombers?
  • Does the treaty include adequate verification measures including direct verification of warheads?

Walking Away from Missile Defense:  The Obama Administration has weakened U.S. missile defense efforts since its very first days in office.  In 2009, the administration scrapped planned missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic-turning its back on two staunch allies in an effort to coddle a menacing Russia.  A missile shield located in Eastern Europe would be a strong deterrent to counter the Iranian nuclear threat.  The administration's plans for a revamped European plan are in their infancy and Congress has still not seen details on operations, costs and inventory requirements.

The Administration and Congress have also scaled back funding for missile defense programs.  These cuts include sharp declines to missile defense research and development, leaving promising technologies in laboratories.  

Congress should adequately fund necessary missile defense efforts as countries like Iran and North Korea build up their nuclear arsenals.  The new START treaty must also not interfere with the U.S. missile defense program and the security of Americans and our allies.  A robust missile defense program is critical in today's diverse threat environment.

Still No Crippling Iran Sanctions:  A nuclear-armed Iran is the most pressing proliferation threat the world faces today.  An Iran with nuclear weapons would undermine the global non-proliferation regime, could spur a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, jeopardize efforts to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and increase the chances for nuclear technology falling into terrorists' hands. 

One year ago, President Obama said there must be "real and immediate consequences" for countries that defy their responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If the international community, led by the U.S., fails to act in the face of Iranian violations, the integrity of the global non-proliferation regime will be threatened, rendering this week's summit futile.  President Obama and the Democrat Congress need to impose crippling sanctions on Iran immediately.