Defense Cuts Could Save Nearly $1 Trillion Over 10 Years
Jun 14, 2010
I’m proud to be a part of a new report that identifies options for nearly $1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years within the Department of Defense. Debt, Deficits, & Defense: A Way Forward was produced by the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a group of defense policy wonks put together by Representative Barney Frank to propose possible cuts to the military budget.
“I do not believe after this [proposed plan] is circulated that people will be able to dismiss the argument that you can responsibly, and at no cost to America’s genuine security, make reductions of over a trillion dollars for what has been proposed for the military budget,” Frank said at the release on Friday.
Cuts include further reductions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and limits on the planned modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, which could save approximately $140 billion over 10 years. When missile defense and space spending are also selectively curtailed, that number is increased to $194.5 billion.
Over 100 congressional staffers, NGOs, and members of the press were at the briefing on Friday. When asked what his top three priorities might be for realistic savings within the defense budget, Frank included both nuclear weapons and missile defense.
See the briefing on C-SPAN here.
Testimony by Former Secretary Henry Kissinger
May 25, 2010
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing: The Role of Strategic Arms Control in a Post-Cold War World (The New START Treaty)
May 25, 2010
On Tuesday May 25, Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty, unequivocally recommending the treaty’s ratification.
Secretary Kissinger is experienced in the field of arms control and nuclear security—he is author of Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, he negotiated the first agreement to limit U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons through the SALT I accord, and in 2007 he became one of the most well known figures to endorse the goal of creating a world free of nuclear weapons.
START Hearing with Former Secretary of State James Baker
May 19, 2010
Today, Former Secretary of State James Baker— a key figure when the original START treaty was negotiated- testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the history of arms control and on the New START treaty.
He called New START a modest and appropriate continuation of START I, although questions on missile defense, verification and our nuclear umbrella need to be addressed.
Baker’s testimony emphasized the importance of arms control, arguing it is a “critical component of our security” as well as that of our allies. He further suggested that our security increases when diplomatic relations between two nations are characterized by openness rather than secrecy.
He said that the New START takes us in a direction that can enhance our security, improve our relationship with Russia, allow for a reduction in the number of warheads, and increase our ability to work to stem proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Big Day for New START agreement
Apr 29, 2010
The prospects for ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement rose dramatically today.
Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who was a key figure in torpedoing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999 and opposed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, today endorsed ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty.
He is widely admired by Republicans for his extensive experience and forceful positions on nuclear issues and has been a close ally of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Schlesinger and Kyl almost dual-handedly killed the test ban treaty.
His endorsement of the treaty follow that of other Republican heavyweights such as Former Republican Secretaries of State George Shultz, Former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley, Former National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former START negotiator Richard Burt.
It also follows enthusiastic support for the treaty by uniformed and civilian Pentagon leadership.
Public opinion polling shows strong support for the treaty as well: 60% in a Quinnipiac poll and 70% in a CNN poll.
Unfinished Symphony/treaty
Mar 28, 2010
Last evening, I attended the National Symphony Orchester at the Kennedy Center at which they played Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony No. 8.
Fitting, because the U.S.-Russian nuclear reductions treaty called New START announced by President Obama and cabinet officials on March 26 is not quite finished either.
The 20-page treaty has been completed as is the associated protocol. The many detailed pages of annexes laying out verification procedures and the complete explanation of the treaty – called article-by-article analysis – are not quite done.
But Presidents Obama and Medvedev will head to Prague on April 8 to sign the agreement – or should I say the Finale: Allegro moderato.
The treaty is important movement to reducing the limits on strategic nuclear weapons by about 30%. It is a step towards the President’s non-proliferation goals and begins a reset in U.S. and Russian relations that deteriorated during the George W. Bush Administration.
The treaty enhances U.S. security by verifiably reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles and ensuring a stable and predictable U.S.-Russian nuclear relationship.
Troubles in U.S.-Russian land
Mar 10, 2010
Good New York Times article today about the difficulties in the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.
People may have thought it just like getting back on a bicycle, but it isn’t.
There are too many grievances over the last 20 years – or is it 80 years – between the U.S. and Russia to make buddy-buddy easily again.
Most experts thought that the New START nuclear reductions treaty negotiations would go rapidly and smoothly.
Unfortunately, not so.
The most important deadline was the December 5, 2009 expiration of the START I agreement, and the two countries breezed past that three-month-old deadline.
The U.S. nurses grievances over Russian trade with Iran and Moscow’s harsh response in last year’s Russia vs. Georgia conflict. And their crackdown on dissidents.
The Russians nurse grievances about how we treated the former Soviet Union when it was down (before petro-dollars shot up) and our persistence in placing missile defense in former Soviet dependencies. And our tendency to tell them how to run their country.
Both countries could probably extend their list of grievances as long as their arms (either connected to their bodies or their weapons).
We have heard predictions that the New START agreement is 95% done and will be concluded in a matter of weeks.
But we have heard those predictions before.
The new treaty will be worth the wait and will be positive for American national security and yes, even for improved U.S.-Russian relations, but it has been a wait.
The Times article suggests: “The American officials said the answer might be persistence and patience,” and they are correct.
Persistence. Patience. Say in over and over again.
Frank Gaffney goes ballistic -- again
Feb 26, 2010
Frank Gaffney, one of the right wings most extreme figures, goes off the deep end once again.
A long-time lover of missile defense, he finds conspiracies where there are none to prove that President Obama is selling missile defense down the river to Islam.
The Washington Post Al Kamen on Feb. 26 captured Gaffney's loony logic: "The missle defense logo that bombed."
Gaffney sees the Obama campaign logo being combined with an Islamic symbol to undermine the Missile Defense Agency-- only to find that the logo is three years ago adopted -- gasp -- during the Geoge W. Bush years.
See below.
Obama Plays Hardball with the Russians
Oct 09, 2009
In 1991, at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He immediately heightened tensions using belligerent rhetoric attacking the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire" while authorizing an enormous military buildup against "the focus of evil in the modern world."
A significant number of Americans were worried about the harsh negatives of the Reagan initiatives. One manifestation was the Nuclear Freeze Movement that sought to decrease tensions as well as the nuclear buildup by limiting all nuclear arsenals at current levels as a first step toward their eventual elimination.
Reagan showed his annoyance criticizing "the placard carriers", giving little credence to the groundswell of support for the freeze campaign that swept America in 1981 – 82. This grass-roots uprising was a major factor behind Reagan's March 1983 speech that initiated the missile defense program (SDI) that continues to waste billions of dollars in the military budget.
Among the protesters supporting the Freeze was Columbia University senior Barack Obama, who in 1983 published a plea in a campus news magazine for "a nuclear free world" opposing SDI and military industrial interests “with their billion-dollar erector sets."
In case you missed it…Obama on Missile Defense
Sep 21, 2009
After eight years of an Administration that seemed impervious to public opinion, what a new era we are in. Over the past three months, Council supporters and advocates sent more than 10,000 letters to elected officials, urging them to oppose wasteful and ineffective missile defense programs, including the proposed "third missile defense site" in Europe.
Last week, the White House announced its intention to reconfigure U.S. missile defense policy in Europe – a move which smartly includes scrapping the missile interceptors in Poland and the accompanying radar in the Czech Republic.
This shift in policy was prompted by a request by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense that the President revise the previous missile defense plan – a request aimed to align missile defense policy with immediate security threats, rather than long-range missile threats from Iran that do not currently exist.
According to Council ED John Isaacs, ““The decision to revamp the missile defense plan in Europe is based on technological reality rather than rigid ideology…The Obama administration’s proposal is a better choice for U.S. and European security.”
For more on the political context of this announcement, click here for an analysis by Military Policy Analyst Travis Sharp.
Franks Missile Defense Amendment Defeated
Jul 01, 2009
Rep. Franks (R-AZ) proposed amendment H.AMDT.266 to the FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill, which increased funding for missile defense by $1.2 billion which was subsequently defeated on June 25th. There were a number of Representatives that defected from their party lines, as shown below, but the general effect was awash.
