And Thou Shalt Be Named The Stockpile Management Program

Secretary Clinton helped roll out the administration's modernization Stockpile Management Program (SMP) in her remarks at USIP by stating:

So in addition to supporting a robust nuclear complex budget in 2011, we will also support a new Stockpile Management Program that would focus on sustaining capabilities. This is what the military leaders, charged with responsibility for our strategic deterrent, need in order to defend our country. General Chilton, Commander of U.S. STRATCOM, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t need new nuclear weapons capabilities – but he must be confident in the capabilities that we have.

Marc Ambinder initially read the last sentence as a swipe at Chilton but a DoD official called and clarified:

What Chilton said accurately reflects where Secretary Gates is and the rest of the military is, which is that the arsenal we do have needs to be tended to, so that we can assure our allies and our adversaries that our stockpile has the capabilities that we say it has

While officials from DoD, State, and the administration were quick to argue "the interagency process to produce a new nuclear posture review is proceeding apace without exposing grand fissures," Ambinder points out "That doesn't mean there aren't any fissures."  For the prime example, see Elaine Grossman's article in August (and our post about it) which probably foreshadows disagreementsthat will occur between top officials about what the SMP should include. 

Joining Secretary Gates, who famously noted the importance of modernization at Carnegie, on one side of the argument is STRATCOM Commander General Chilton.  Speaking at the NDU Breakfast Series yesterday, Chilton gave his remarks from the premise that nuclear weapons will be around in 40 years and that efforts beyond the current SSP program will be needed to ensure the stockpile is safe, secure, and effective.  He also spoke to complex infrastructure and human capital issues, though he gave few specifics on any of these subjects. On the other side of the argument, Vice President Biden is opposed to some things Gates and Chilton would like to see included in SMP because it would undermine much needed international nonproliferation cooperation.  Meanwhile, Under Secretary Tauscher is being painted by Ambinder and others as the RRW slayer based on her remarks to the Cable awhile back:

Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for arms control, is firmly against a new weapon design.  "I think there are a lot of people that still hope for the return of RRW, and they are going to be sadly disappointed," she told the Cable.  For Tauscher, stockpile management means refurbishment -- and nothing new. You can't build a new warhead without enhancing capability, she believes. And there's no evidence to suggest that, with a few modifications, the current stockpile wouldn't be viable for years to come.

As argued here previously, there's an argument to be had the "RRW is dead" means literally that the words reliable, replacement, and warhead will not show up next to each other in the SMP legislation and not a whole ton more.  Furthermore, it is not readily apparent Tauscher is as opposed to some of the things Gates and Chilton support as it would seem above.  There's no evidence cited supporting what she believes beyond speculation of the Cable quote.  As we argued awhile back (which was before she was in her current position), Tauscher clearly does not support new military capabilites but her views seem to provide some wiggle room on the reuse/refurbish/replacement continuum being shopped by DoD as long as nos like no new military capabilities are satisfied.  DoD, including Chilton yesterday, has been persistent to point out that SMP is NOT new military capabilities, new testing, or an attempt to indefinitely hold on to nuclear weapons indefinitely as part of the vital press campaign to distance current efforts from the political firestorm that was RRW.

This effort may have suffered a setback on Monday, however, with the news that the new JASON study briefed to DoE last month found no need for "dramatic changes."  Cue Elaine Grossman: 

The JASON group found that periodic "life-extension programs," or LEPs, remain a viable means of keeping the U.S. arsenal safe, secure and reliable . . . The group was said to find that replacing existing warheads in the U.S. stockpile with new designs to be unnecessary at this time.  Instead, a combination of weapon-component refurbishment and the reuse of tested designs should suffice in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, according to those familiar with the panel's conclusions. The United States has observed a moratorium on underground tests since the early 1990s.  "We believe that the report finds that current [life-extension] programs are working extremely well," said one nuclear weapons analyst who asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of discussing a secret report. "There's no need for any dramatic changes in the programs or indeed a need to produce a new-design warhead."

Not shockingly, reactions ranged from "The JASON report should give nonproliferation proponents a political shot in the arm" to "'It will be a data point' in the debate."  We shall see when the report is released, hopefully with an unclass version, "shortly."