A farewell to (a few) arms

On 6 April 2009, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates released a $534 billion military budget proposal for 2010 (not including the Iraq or Afghanistan wars) that attempts to move away from so-called “Cold War” technologies to those needed to fight “insurgencies” in Afghanistan and Iraq. His plans are being welcomed by some who support arms control as a “credible effort to bring new discipline and focus to military spending after the unrestrained, inchoate years of the Bush administration” (New York Times editorial).

The money
However, few who either oppose or support the cuts have noted that the US military budget went up again this year. 2009’s budget was $515.4 billion—without including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear weapon research, maintenance, and production, and veteran affairs.

Writing on AfterDowningStreet.org, David Swanson noted the radically different spin put on the budget by mainstream media and business sources. He pointed out, for example, that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said, “... that thump-thump-thump sound that you heard in the distance as [Gates revealed the budget] was the sound of executives at all the big defense contractors passing out.” Meanwhile, MarketWatch, in an article entitled, “Pentagon still a cash cow despite budget cuts,” quoted the Wall Street analysts’ perspective: “there’s still plenty of funding for the country’s top military contractors.”

“Lockheed Martin had the best outcome from Gates’ budget decisions, there was also strong support for Northrop Grumman’s and General Dynamics’ shipbuilding businesses,” said Douglas Harned, an analyst with Bernstein Research. “Notably, there were no indications of plans to bring budgets down significantly in 2011.”

Likewise, Janes noted, “Major US defence stocks were raised out of the doldrums by Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ budget proposals thanks to the lifting of a degree of uncertainty and proposals that were not as dramatic as the markets expected.”

The programmes
An editorial in the New York Times, which overall advocated for more spending on weapons of “use” rather than a reduction of spending, did at least note, “Scrapping wasteful weapons programs is essential, but how much better it would be if they were never built at all. The Pentagon’s procurement system has so run amok that 70 percent of the weapons were over budget last year by a total $296 billion.”

A good example of this is the Airborne Laser—a chemical laser mounted on a Boeing 747. No, really. The Airborne Laser programme suffered from chronic cost and schedule overruns—according to Ellen Tauscher, chair of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee: four years and billions of dollars over. Government funding for the programme has been reduced for the past several years, though the Missile Defense Agency continued requesting more money, shrilly arguing that its first “live shoot-down test” couldn’t afford to be postponed any longer, for the security of the nation.

In 2006, former Missile Defense Agency chief Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering, III, explained the value of the Airbone Laser: “I believe we are building the forces of good to beat the forces of evil.... We are taking a major step in giving the American people their first light saber.” Remarking on the rather awkward aesthetics of the weapon system, he also commented, “This is not the prettiest aircraft I have seen. It is not supposed to be pretty. It is supposed to be mean.”

Thankfully, Gates is recommending this programme be cut, along with the deployment of interceptor missiles to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska, one segment of the US missile “defense” system. For the most part, tests of the Alaska system have failed miserably. Rockets usually fail to make it out of their launch tubes and kill vehicles have failed to separate from their rockets when they do make it out. A year ago, the Missile Defense Agency estimated the Ground-based segment would cost about $50 billion.

However, as the NYT editorial also argued, “He should have cut deeper than $1.4 billion into the unproven missile defense program.” Likewise, giving a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capability, William Hartung of the New America Foundation outlined six weapon systems that could be cut “without undermining [US] security,” which included missile defence as a whole. He argued, “This year marks the 26th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars speech, and there has yet to be realistic test that indicates that we can reliably shoot down incoming nuclear warheads launched from a long-range ballistic missile.”

Unfortunately, Hartung went on to assert, “The elements of the missile defense budget that involve defending against ICBMs can be eliminated without harming our security in any way. There is some indication that mid-range systems designed to protect troops or nearby allies from medium-range missiles may prove to be more effective.” In reality, the vast majority of anti-missile technologies have faced cost overruns and delays. Even more importantly, their development, testing, and deployment will have harsh consequences for international relations, particularly between Russia and the United States, and for the US economy.

Overall, the varying reactions to Gates’ proposed military budget are virtually devoid of any criticism of what the $534 billion is spent on—weapons of war. Weapons that are used in the wars that the United States instigates, wars which have another budget all their own. On the contrary, even those supposedly in support of arms control and disarmament have recommended the military stop wasting money on weapon systems they don’t use and spend it on weapons they do use. Further, no one seems to have questioned the need or right of the United States to use these weapons—that the US would need different types of weapons to fight new types of wars is accepted as fact. For all the talk of giving the military budget a “massive overhaul,” no one has referred to the distinction between offensive and non-offensive defence, the latter focusing on defence systems that protect a state rather than on armed attack against other states.

And no, missile “defence” is not a form of non-offensive defence, as its methods and means are inherently offensive. For example, as has even been argued by pro-missile “defence” advocates, “The mere fact that missile defense ships could be deployed to war zones as part of larger naval armadas gives them an immediately recognizable offensive dimension.” Further, as Mike Moore pointed out, “The infrastructure for a ballistic missile defense system is, in large measure, the same as that needed for an offensive anti-satellite system.”

Finally, as the military budget continues to grow even in a time of the global financial crisis, where is the money for everything else a country needs to survive going to come from? Why isn’t anybody asking that?

US President Obama calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons

During a much-anticipated speech in Prague on 5 April 2009, US President Obama announced “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He noted the United States has a moral obligation to lead nuclear disarmament efforts since it has one of the largest arsenals and is the only country to have ever used the weapons—a very interesting and welcome admission. However, his plans for the way forward do not comprise the “radical drive” many had hoped for or that is arguably necessary for success.’

His plan for nuclear disarmament entails:
• Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy doctrines;
• Negotiating a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia;
• “Immediately and aggressively” pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
• Seeking a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons;
• Strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation through increased resources and authority to strengthen international inspections and through “real and immediate consequences” for withdrawal from the Treaty; and
• Building a “new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank;”
• Starting a “new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years” in cooperation with Russia;
• Turning the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into “durable international institutions;” and
• Hosting a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year.

The reduction of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, the talk of working for a verifiable fissile materials treaty, and the negotiation of a START sequel are all welcome endeavours. They are not new or radical ideas as suggested by some media reports—all of been on the arms control and disarmament agenda for years. Many were included in the “thirteen practical steps for nuclear disarmament” agreed upon at the 2000 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which the Bush administration backed away from in 2005. This possible recommitment to some of the steps is worth noting, as is it’s emphasis on international law, highlighted by Obama’s suggestion of institutionalizing Bush-era initiatives like the Proliferation Security Initiatives.

Unfortunately, some of the other points in Obama’s plan for a nuclear weapon free world require thoughtful consideration.

Arsenal reductions
The first point of concern is actually the START negotiations. The current buzz on US-Russian reductions is now focused on the number 1500—close to the 1000 hoped for by many arms control groups, not close enough to the zero hoped for by most abolition groups. Most importantly, the context of the number of 1500 has to be scrutinized. According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Stan Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, there are approximately 5200 total warheads and bombs in the active and reserve nuclear stockpiles of the United States today, including approximately 500 so-called “tactical” nuclear warheads and bombs, with some 4200 warheads and bombs awaiting dismantlement, for a total of approximately 9400 warheads. Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group notes,

The stockpile declines being discussed are in the range we might associate with retirement of obsolete systems that nobody much wants. So nobody is giving up much. But even so the effects ramify throughout the management of the enterprise and the talks themselves and the transparency frameworks they will hopefully create are very important.

Strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
While Obama does mention that the “bargain” of the NPT includes nuclear disarmament, he does not cite compliance with this obligation in his remedy for strengthening the Treaty. His silence on this aspect of the NPT is deafening, especially when the majority of non-nuclear weapon states have repeatedly articulated that they are unwilling to accept additional non-proliferation measures until they see tangible progress from the nuclear weapon states on disarmament. His call for increased authority for the inspections directly relates to European Union’s call for the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol to become mandatory under the NPT (currently only the IAEA’s safeguards are mandatory and the Additional Protocol, which allows more access for UN inspectors, is optional). This will not be acceptable to groups like the Non-Aligned Movement if it is not accompanied by more than rhetoric on disarmament measures.

Further, Obama’s emphasis on inspections and consequences for withdrawal fits in well with the theory of “anti-nuclear nuclearism” or anti-nuclear imperialism expounded by Darwin BondGraham and Will Parrish in their Foreign Policy in Focus article of January 2009. This theory posits that such “strategies” include minor steps toward arsenal reductions, “at least rhetorically recommitting the United States to international treaties” such as the NPT, “a fig leaf that the United States isn’t developing new nuclear weapons,” and that it is slowly “de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal.” BondGraham and Parrish argue, “By these means the United States has tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, even though it has designed and built newly modified weapons with qualitatively new capacities over the last decade and a half.”

Missile “defence” in Europe
Outside of the specific plans for nuclear disarmament laid out above, perhaps the most troubling element of Obama’s speech was his comments on missile “defence” in Europe. He stated
The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.

For one thing, the line from the Obama administration used to be, “if it doesn’t work, we won’t deploy it.” Now, the question of deploying missile “defence” in Europe seems to rest on the Bush administration’s justification: the threat of Iran. Further, Obama neglects to note that the Czech government failed to garner ratification for the treaties on the proposed anti-missile base, which was followed by a vote of no-confidence by Czech parliament for the government, or that two-thirds of the Czech public rejects the idea of hosting US missile “defence” technology on their soil.

Nuclear power
Obama’s call to “harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change” is also unfortunate—and misleading. Taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle, the CO2 output from nuclear power is much higher from those produced by renewable energy sources—not to mention the problems with nuclear waste and the threat of weapon-material and technology proliferation. It’s unfortunate that Obama did not take the opportunity to commit his administration to working with the new International Renewable Energy Agency as an alternative to promoting the expansion of nuclear power.

Moving forward
While the speech was disappointing, particularly for those of us hoping to hear President Obama call for the removal of nuclear weapons of Europe, a recommitment to Article VI of the NPT, or bigger cuts to the arsenal, it was certainly an improvement from Bush administration foreign policy statements. Further, Obama’s reference to US use of nuclear weapons seems significant. There is still hope.