{"id":518828,"date":"2010-04-07T06:00:40","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T10:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/?p=81533"},"modified":"2010-04-07T06:00:40","modified_gmt":"2010-04-07T10:00:40","slug":"the-new-nuclear-consensus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/518828","title":{"rendered":"The New Nuclear Consensus?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_81535\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"width: 490px\"><a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/04\/robert-gates1.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-81535\" title=\"Robert Gates\" src=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/04\/robert-gates1-480x320.jpg\" alt=\"Robert Gates\" width=\"480\" height=\"320\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Defense Secretary Robert Gates discusses the Nuclear Posture Review at the Pentagon on Tuesday. (EPA\/ZUMApress.com)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>The beginning of the new Washington consensus on nuclear strategy,  embodied by Tuesday&#8217;s release of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.defense.gov\/npr\/\">Obama administration&#8217;s Nuclear  Posture Review<\/a>, began, ironically, with an October 2008 speech that  presented a notably different view.<\/p>\n<p><div id=\"attachment_2848\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"width: 140px\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2848\" title=\"nationalsecurity\" src=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/08\/nationalsecurity.jpg\" alt=\"Image by: Matt Mahurin\" width=\"130\" height=\"130\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Image by: Matt Mahurin<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"floatButtons\">\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;\"><script src=\"http:\/\/digg.com\/tools\/diggthis.js\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-bottom: 10px;\"><script type=\"text\/javascript\"\n\tsrc=\"http:\/\/d.yimg.com\/ds\/badge2.js\"\n\tbadgetype=\"square\">\n\t<?php the_permalink(); ?><\/script><\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-right: 10px;\">\n\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\">\ntweetmeme_source = \"TWI_news\";\ntweetmeme_service = \"bit.ly\";\n<\/script> <script src=\"http:\/\/tweetmeme.com\/i\/scripts\/button.js\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" href=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php\">Share<\/a><script src=\"http:\/\/static.ak.fbcdn.net\/connect.php\/js\/FB.Share\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p> A week before the  presidential election, Robert Gates, the Bush administration&#8217;s  well-respected defense secretary, admonished a gathering at the Carnegie  Endowment for International Peace, a think tank with an arms-control  bent, about the continued need for a robust nuclear deterrent. &#8220;Rising  and resurgent powers, rogue nations pursuing nuclear weapons,  proliferation, international terrorism &#8212; all demand that we preserve  this &#8216;hedge,&#8217;&#8221; Gates said, defending an expansive series of roles and  missions for the U.S. nuclear stockpile, <a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/81466\/gates-2008-nuke-speech-vs-2010-nuclear-posture-review\">including  deterring chemical or biological-weapons attacks<\/a>. Gates held out  the prospect for building new nuclear weapons in the guise of  modernizing the existing stockpile; gave short shrift to the idea of  additional U.S. arms reductions; and even said there was &#8220;absolutely no  way&#8221; to make such cuts without &#8220;either resorting to testing our  stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.&#8221; After all, Gates said,  &#8220;we must be realistic about the world around us.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Arms control  advocates in the audience were horrified. &#8220;I was totally pissed at that  speech,&#8221; recalled Joe Cirincione, now the president of the  non-proliferation Ploughshares Fund. Gates appeared to be challenging  the likely next president. &#8220;I thought, Obama is going to become  president, and this is one of his top objectives!&#8221; But in retrospect,  Cirincione added, &#8220;It turned out this was going to be a political asset  for him.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The new, 75-page Nuclear Posture Review effectively  represents a repudiation of Gates&#8217;s 2008 speech by, among other  administration officials, Robert Gates. Months of laborious interagency  meetings and discussions &#8212; 80 of them, one participant counted off at a  Pentagon press briefing Tuesday afternoon &#8212; resulted in <a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/81306\/administration-to-signal-shift-away-from-a-nuclear-future\">a  document that for the first time places the proliferation of nuclear  weapons, and particularly their acquisition by terrorists, as the  principle nuclear threat the U.S. faces<\/a>. Contrary to the tone and  content of Gates&#8217; speech, the so-called NPR expressly forswears the use  of nuclear weapons to retaliate against non-nuclear attacks by  good-faith signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, perhaps  the first time that U.S. nuclear doctrine has been explicitly tethered  to compliance with an international treaty. And it pledges that the  Obama administration will seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive  Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate rejected in 1999.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally,  while it keeps both the nuclear stockpile and the &#8220;triad&#8221; of missiles,  submarines and bombers to deliver nuclear weapons &#8212; though it pledges  to cut the arsenal even further than a new treaty with Russia calls for  &#8212; it embraces the sort of restrictions on the stockpile that Gates&#8217;  speech rejected. Or, in the words of Gen. James Cartwright, the vice  chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first Marine to helm the  military command in charge of nuclear weapons, &#8220;No new testing, no new  warheads&#8230; no new missions or capabilities.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The NPR is a &#8220;concrete  plan for implementing the presidential vision&#8221; of a nuclear-free world,  said Bradley H. Roberts, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for  nuclear and missile-defense policy. Accordingly, the NPR &#8220;reduce[s] the  number and role of nuclear weapons, while at the same time ensuring we  maintain a safe, secure and effective deterrent as long as nuclear  weapons remain relevant.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Though it&#8217;s not without its  caveats. At his press conference, Gates didn&#8217;t refer to his 2008 speech,  nor did he show interest in dredging up differences between him and  other members of the administration. Instead, he singled out Iran and  North Korea as potential exemptions to the abandonment of U.S. nuclear  retaliation for non-nuclear attack, since Iran has been repeatedly  criticized by the International Atomic Energy Agency for insufficient  compliance with the NPT and North Korea, now a nuclear power, withdrew  from the treaty in 2003. &#8220;If you&#8217;re not going to play by the rules, if  you\u2019re going to be a proliferator,&#8221; Gates said, &#8220;then all options are on  the table.&#8221; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton <a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/81501\/the-nuclear-posture-review-as-assertive-multilateralism\">added<\/a> that the move was an &#8220;important step to reinvigorate&#8221; the NPT.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, the document states that the &#8220;fundamental role&#8221; of U.S.  nuclear weapons is to deter attack, which has struck some arms-control  experts as insufficient. &#8220;Giving nuclear weapons roles beyond deterring  nuclear attack is both unnecessary and counterproductive, and we urge  the administration to adopt a \u2018sole purpose\u2019 policy now rather than  later,&#8221; Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a  prepared statement.<\/p>\n<p>Roberts conceded the dissatisfaction before  downplaying it on a bloggers&#8217; conference call in response to a question  from TWI. &#8220;We were not prepared to endorse the statement of &#8217;sole  purpose&#8217; in this review, and that will be disappointing to some,&#8221;  Roberts said. &#8220;On the other hand, those who wanted a concrete, pragmatic  work plan to actually reduce nuclear dangers and to identify an agenda  of activities that can be accomplished cooperatively internationally see  a lot in this report. I would say we&#8217;ve had much more positive feedback  on the latter point than we&#8217;ve had negative feedback on the former.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>That  &#8220;concrete, pragmatic work plan to actually reduce nuclear dangers&#8221; is  the sort of thing that Gates called for in 2008. And in both his press  conference and in his forward to the NPR, he found points at which to  implicitly reconcile his old comments with the new administration  nuclear assessment. For one thing, Gates spoke of adversaries who attack  the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons receiving a &#8220;devastating  conventional military response,&#8221; an statement in line with his 2008  speech&#8217;s throwaway line that conventional U.S. weapons are also a  powerful deterrent. (A line, incidentally, <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.abcnews.com\/politicalpunch\/2010\/04\/todays-qs-for-os-wh-462010.html\">echoed  by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday<\/a> when ABC&#8217;s  Jake Tapper asked about Gates&#8217; 2008 speech.)<\/p>\n<p>And for another,  Gates wrote in the NPR&#8217;s introduction that a new $5 billion investment  in the Department of Energy&#8217;s program to refurbish the nation&#8217;s nuclear  infrastructure &#8220;represent[s] a credible modernization plan necessary to  sustain the nuclear infrastructure and support our nation&#8217;s deterrent.&#8221;  So much for there being &#8220;absolutely no way&#8221; to cut the stockpile without  new testing or new warheads.<\/p>\n<p>For Cirincione, that line signaled  Gates &#8212; considered in the press to be the last holdout to  administration consensus on the NPR &#8212; has joined the fold. &#8220;That is a  reversal of Bob Gates&#8217; October 2008 speech, and this document puts the  secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff solidly behind  ratification of the test-ban treaty,&#8221; he said, referring to the longtime  arms-controller priority. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint  Chiefs of Staff, told the Pentagon press corps that the NPR was a &#8220;great  product&#8221; that the &#8220;chiefs and I fully support.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Key to that  support was Cartwright, whose experience running U.S. Strategic Command  apparently convinced him of the dubious military utility of nuclear  weapons. &#8220;Cartwright is the man,&#8221; Cirincione said. &#8220;He&#8217;s the one who  advises Mullen, who advises Gates, he&#8217;s the one [Undersecretary of State  for Arms Control Ellen] Tauscher&#8217;s close to. He&#8217;s the guy.&#8221; Adm. John  Roberti, the deputy director for strategy and policy on the military&#8217;s  Joint Staff, said that Cartwright&#8217;s &#8220;influence on the final decisions  and the final product was felt throughout the process.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Gates&#8217; support for the NPR will likely signal to official Washington  that the Obama administration&#8217;s cautious, gradual steps to the  elimination of nuclear weapons is the new normal, not some wild-eyed  progressive fantasy. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a  hearing about the document on April 22, and its chairman, Sen. Carl  Levin (D-Mich.), said in a statement that he was pleased it &#8220;balances a  discussion of the nuclear triad with a strengthening of nonproliferation  programs and commitments.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, at his press conference,  Gates effectively reprised a formulation used in his October 2008  speech &#8212; but this time, in defense of the administration&#8217;s approach to  eventually junking nuclear weapons. &#8220;We recognized the need to make  progress in the direction the president has set,&#8221; said Obama&#8217;s defense  secretary, &#8220;but we also recognize the real world we continue to live  in.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defense Secretary Robert Gates discusses the Nuclear Posture Review at the Pentagon on Tuesday. (EPA\/ZUMApress.com) The beginning of the new Washington consensus on nuclear strategy, embodied by Tuesday&#8217;s release of the Obama administration&#8217;s Nuclear Posture Review, began, ironically, with an October 2008 speech that presented a notably different view. Image by: Matt Mahurin Share A [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4314,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-518828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/518828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4314"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=518828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/518828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=518828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=518828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=518828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}