U.S. Nuclear Weapons May No Longer Provide Credible Deterrence, Tauscher Says, Urging Nukes Reduction
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), whose subcommittee oversees U.S. missile defense efforts, today questioned the value of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) ballistic missile shield that would be modified to create the planned European Missile Defense (EMD) system. She said the system hasn’t deterred rogue nations from developing threatening missile systems.
Tauscher, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee, also said the U.S. nuclear stockpile and intercontinental ballistic missiles may not deter rogue nations from contemplating a strike against the United States.
On that point, there is some agreement between her view and that of missile defense program leaders, who argue that some nations just might launch nuclear or other missiles at the United States, and therefore a missile defense shield is required to annihilate those enemy missiles before they can strike a U.S. city.
In prior years, Tauscher and her subcommittee have moved to slash funding for missile defense programs that aren’t yet developed and operational, such as the EMD system, the Airborne Laser (ABL), and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), in favor of adding funding to already-operational systems such as the Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT] Aegis weapon control and Raytheon Co. [RTN] Standard Missile interceptor sea-based missile shield. The GMD and EMD systems are led by The Boeing Co. [BA], as is the ABL, while the KEI is led by Northrop Grumman Corp. [NOC] with a significant role played by Raytheon.
Tauscher also has pushed Congress to demand testing of the EMD interceptors before they are deployed. The EMD interceptor is similar to the GMD interceptor, minus one stage.
Tauscher was asked by Space & Missile Defense Report about a view by Lt. Gen. Henry A. “Trey” Obering III, who is about to step down as director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). He observed that delays in funding programs could harm them substantially. He has said that every missile defense program necessarily must go through a development phase, and if funds are denied to a program just because it’s in development, then the United States will be left without new systems.
He specifically cited the EMD, which uses an interceptor that is a modified version of the GMD interceptor now installed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The EMD system needs to be built, soon, to counter an emerging missile threat from Iran, Obering said. (Please see full story in this issue.)
Tauscher replied that she disagrees.
“Gen. Obering and I have a very different point of view on whether the R&D cycle includes deployment of a system that has not achieved credible deterrence through testing,” she said. “He believes you do. I believe you don’t.
“I think that we all agree that the Ground-based interceptor system that is in Fort Greely and Vandenberg, Calif., has not achieved credible deterrence. And it is a lot of money that we’ve spent. And he can justify the rush to deploy it for political reasons … all he wants.”
No rogue nations have been dissuaded by formation of the U.S. missile defense shield from continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, she commented.
“The truth is, is that it hasn’t caused anybody to stop doing what they’re doing,” she said. “And if it hasn’t done that, then holy moly, what’s the point” of developing missile defenses?
“It’s like a Hollywood set,” she said. “It’s like a facade. And if it can only work by appointment only, then it isn’t what it was advertised to be. So it’s still R&D. And if it’s still R&D,” then funding for such programs should be challenged.
Also, Tauscher told reporters today that it is unclear whether the U.S. nuclear deterrent — the threat of American forces raining nuclear annihilation on any nation that launches a nuclear attack on a U.S. city — is effective.
That means the United States should “expand the number of tools we have for deterrence, and not just rely on the nuclear deterrent, which you may not use, number one, and number two, you may have an ambiguous sense of whether it is effective. And number three, you may not be able to deliver it to the people who need to get the message,” those who launched the attack on the United States or its interests. That referred to the difficulty of determining just who launched an attack, especially if it involves a nuclear weapon smuggled into the United States, where the country of origin of the weapon is at first unknown.
Earlier today, Tauscher spoke before the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies think tank in Washington.
She said that the United States spends “billions of dollars” to maintain the nuclear stockpile of nuclear weapons, and that it would make sense to reduce their number.
Tauscher also challenged proposals to build a reliable replacement warhead, saying, “We are not going to build a new nuclear weapon … we’re going to eliminate weapons.”
The value of nuclear weapons as a deterrent must be reassessed, she said. “Their value has changed,” she asserted. “We’re still evaluating whether that is better in some cases, worse in some cases.”
But it is obvious that with some rogue regimes, “they don’t care” if they attack the United States and it responds with a devastating rain of nuclear weapons, she said.
Separately, Tauscher last week spoke before the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies think tank.
Tauscher repeated her years-long criticisms of MDA budgeting, which Congress established in a streamlined fashion to cut red tape and hasten development of missile defense systems, before rogue nations or terrorists send chemical, biological or nuclear tipped missiles toward U.S. cities.
It is time to review that budgeting process, and time to see whether missile defense programs are migrating to the various armed services with sufficient speed, she indicated.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Tauscher also told the center forum that she wishes to work with President-elect Obama on a new regime encouraging expansion of nuclear power generation in nations around the world, but with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) blocking those nations from obtaining nuclear weapons.
A workable plan “would guarantee reliable, affordable nuclear energy supplies to countries that pledge to forego nuclear weapons development,” she explained. She credited IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei with proposing a seminal “grand bargain” that can be the framework for a future multilateral solution.
Currently, controls on misuse of nuclear materials intended for electrical power generation are “woefully insufficient,” with a resultant danger of more nations developing nuclear weapons, she cautioned, citing Iran and North Korea as glaring examples of nonproliferation failures.
“I want to make the case … for a new, international, multilateral compact that would offer safe and reliable electricity through nuclear power, while keeping the most sensitive parts of the fuel cycle under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision,” Tauscher said.
The congresswoman does not wish to curb construction of more nuclear power plants, saying instead that nuclear power is “carbon free; provides reliable electricity; its price is generally stable and not subject to changing climate conditions; and it can help create potable [safe-to-drink] water and hydrogen.”
She agreed with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his view that the number of nuclear armed states should be as limited as possible.
But that goal will be threatened as ever-more nations move to nuclear power generation, she warned, saying that “the global arms control regime is under siege.”
It is a fact, she said, that “building nuclear power plants gives countries access to weapons material.”
With the United Nations listing some 60 countries operating or building nuclear power or research reactors, she observed that at least 40 nations “possess the industrial and scientific infrastructure to build nuclear weapons on relatively short notice. Once countries master uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, they have overcome a significant hurdle to developing nuclear weapons.”
The problem, left unattended, will only worsen, Tauscher warned.
Some 50 nations have expressed interest in nuclear power and have sought IAEA technical assistance, she said, citing as well ever-rising global plutonium stocks, and the widening problem of handling and disposing of spent fuel.
Worse, she added, ElBaradei reported there have been almost 250 incidents of theft or loss of nuclear materials in June 2007-June 2008.
“These are serious threats to global security,” she said. “The instability created by the drive for nuclear energy is a direct threat to non-proliferation efforts. Not coincidentally potentially hostile countries have learned the best way to get the world’s attention is to start a nuclear weapons program. Countries such as North Korea and Iran realized, rather quickly, that the legal pursuit of nuclear energy can be a backdoor means to developing weapons capabilities.”
But the ElBaradei plan would curb such rogue state actions, she predicted.
“The proposal calls the bluff of countries like North Korea and Iran that are developing weapons programs behind the veil of peaceful energy production,” Tauscher said.
His plan proposes keeping nuclear materials processing under multinational surveillance, deploying proliferation-resistant nuclear energy facilities, and forming a multinational solution to managing and disposing of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
“The combination of these proposals would add proliferation controls to the most sensitive aspect of the fuel cycle, and broaden the benefits of nuclear technology to more countries,” Tauscher said.
She said the aim here would be to provide nuclear fuel to nations wishing to begin nuclear generation programs, so that they have no need to create nuclear materials production and processing capabilities that can lead later to construction of nuclear weapons.
“There is no absolute need for countries to possess their own enrichment or reprocessing facilities, the two most sensitive stages of the fuel cycle,” Taushcer said.
The commercial market can satisfy any demand for fuel services, she continued, “so there is no need for additional national capabilities.”
She endorsed proposals for formation of a fuel bank that the IAEA would oversee. “The setup would be rather straight-forward. The IAEA would maintain a regular supply schedule and ensure prompt payment,” she said. “As a guarantor, the IAEA would provide oversight. It would judge whether conditions for supply are being met, assess the nonproliferation status of the recipient, oversee suppliers and generally act as a broker between the supplier and recipient.”
Obama could play a key role here, she said. “To make this model possible, I will work with President-elect Obama to undertake several steps in the short term. The most immediate is a new commitment by the United States to lead negotiations toward a fissile material cutoff treaty,” which she termed “a have-to-have,” rather than “a nice-to- have.”Tauscher also called for clear penalties on any nation withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and those penalties must be swift and certain, she said.
“It took three years for the international community to condemn North Korea after it withdrew from the NPT in 2003,” Tauscher said. “Instead of being allowed to act with impunity, I recommend that the [United Nations] Security Council prospectively adopt a resolution under Chapter Seven that states that if a nuclear power, after being found by the IAEA to be in noncompliance with its safeguard commitments, withdraws from the NPT, such a withdrawal would then automatically trigger sanctions.”
North Korea has admitted to processing plutonium for nuclear weapons at a reactor at Yongbyon, a facility that Pyongyang recently partially demolished. And North Korea has supplied voluminous documents to the West concerning that program.
However, North Korea hasn’t explained how traces of highly enriched uranium were found on those documents, and the North hasn’t turned over to international inspectors even one of its nuclear weapons.
North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon successfully, underground, and also has fired missiles in a salvo test. It is constructing a new missile launching facility in the northwestern region of the isolated country, and is developing a Taepo Dong-2 missile capable of striking targets in the United States. As well, North Korea a decade ago fired a missile arcing over Japan that fell into the sea.
Tauscher also called for the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to engage in immediate and unconditional direct negotiations with North Korea. Thus far, the United States mainly has participated in six-party, rather than bilateral, talks with North Korea.
Finally, she called on Pakistan to give the United States full access to interview A.Q. Khan, who masterminded a nuclear proliferation scheme, “so the world may gain a complete understanding of the damage he has caused,” Tauscher said.