Addressing Real Geopolitical Threats: The Prague Agenda, Three Years Later
Tomorrow marks three years since President Obama laid out his vision for combatting the most nightmarish threat to American security – a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. Since then, the administration has led in concluding the New START Treaty with Russia and co-sponsoring two Nuclear Security Summits, which together have led to the destruction or lockdown of thousands of weapons’ worth of nuclear material. America and the world are safer as a result. Even as the U.S. leads efforts to reduce the world’s nuclear weapons, America continues to maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal. At the same time, the administration is working with military leaders to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, which experts and military leaders say is not only possible, but will enhance U.S. security by freeing up funds for more pressing priorities at home – and putting pressure on other nations to reduce or end their own nuclear weapons programs.
Nuclear proliferation – especially a weapon in the hands of terrorists – is the biggest threat to American security. As President Obama said in his Prague speech, “Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one.” The National Security Strategy reiterated that view, saying, “[T]here is no greater threat to the American people than weapons of mass destruction, particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.” [Barack Obama, 4/5/09. National Security Strategy, 5/10]
Progress has been made at combating that threat.
Nuclear Security Summits secure enough nuclear material to make thousands of bombs. This year saw the second Nuclear Security Summit, an initiative called for by President Obama in his Prague Speech. Those summits have brought concrete gains in nuclear security. As the Summit’s fact sheet notes, “32 countries made over 70 commitments on specific actions to enhance nuclear security at the Washington Summit, and the national progress reports submitted by the participating countries have shown that nearly all of these have been achieved.” Those results include eight countries giving up enough nuclear material to make 19 bombs and material for thousands more being properly secured against theft or misuse in Russia, Kazakhstan and elsewhere.” [Nuclear Security Summit Fact Sheet, 3/28/12]
New START Treaty cuts hundreds of weapons from Russia’s arsenal under scrutiny of U.S. inspectors. As secretaries of state for the last five Republican presidents wrote when the Senate was reviewing New START, the treaty “reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit… It is, however, in the national interest to ratify New START.” [Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell, 12/2/10]
U.S. will continue to maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal – and will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our 21st century security strategy. As President Obama said in Prague, “Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies – including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.” Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution explains how the Pentagon is advising this administration on next steps – as it did when Presidents Reagan and Bush ordered large reductions in our arsenal. Pifer writes, “The Pentagon is leading a review that will recommend options to the president for nuclear-weapons employment. His subsequent guidance will shape the structure and size of U.S. nuclear forces. This guidance should lead the military to conclude it could get by with fewer nuclear weapons than at present. The review offers an opportunity to examine fundamental questions, such as what targets are needed for effective deterrence… A smaller target set would require fewer warheads. Former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright has already suggested that, given the large costs of maintaining and modernizing the triad of ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and nuclear bombers, Washington should consider whether it could get by with something less.”
While the administration works with military leaders to explore a new strategy, it continues to fund nuclear modernization to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the arsenal. As Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association note, the budget for the agency that oversees U.S. nuclear arsenal has gone up: “NNSA’s [National Nuclear Security Administration] FY2013 request for weapons activities is $7.6 billion, an increase of $363 million or five percent above enacted FY2012, and $1.2 billion more than FY2010. Historically, this funding level is higher than at any time since the Cold War…The bottom line is that small changes in the defense budget, as mandated by the Budget Control Act, do not alter the fact that the administration is meeting its commitments to the Senate under New START.” [Barack Obama, 4/5/09. Steven Pifer, 1/6/12. Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina, 3/19/12]
What We’re Reading
The International Security Assistance Force reported that three NATO-led service members were killed in an explosion in northern Afghanistan.
The U.S. and Afghanistan are close to signing a landmark document that would give Afghans effective control over nighttime raids and clear the way for a strategic partnership agreement.
The first Marines arrived in Darwin, Australia under a deal that will boost the American military’s presence in the region.
Syria’s political opposition accused President Bashar al-Assad of escalating military assaults on four major urban areas.
Members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood met with White House officials, policy experts and others to address ongoing concerns about the group’s political rise.
The Iraqi government is considering enacting laws that would enforce strict limits on freedom of speech and association, eliciting concerns that the authorities are becoming more oppressive.
A Brookings Institution study reveals increasing distrust between China and the U.S. that could worsen with time.
Japanese refiners plan to cut Iranian crude imports again this month.
The French interior ministry announced that ten suspected Islamists were arrested in country-wide raids following last month’s fatal rampage by a man who claimed links to Islamist extremists.
A young woman blew herself up during an address by Somalia’s prime minister in Mogadishu, killing four people, including the country’s Olympic and football bosses.
One of Britain’s largest and most powerful destroyers has set sail for the Falkland Islands.
Commentary of the Day
The Bloomberg News editorial staff explores the uses of economic sanctions.
Jeffrey Wasserstrom claims China’s Communist Party is not as cohesive as it may seem.
Bernard Aronson argues that Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, has the opportunity to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
