Take Two?

The Guardian is reporting that Obama has stamped a draft of the NPR return to sender.  Julian Borger claims: 

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.  Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

In some respects, this may not be groundbreaking news.  There is no doubt, for example that the NPR from the outset will be grappling with questions like what does our force structure look like at lower levels (even if we can't go there right now), what is the role of nuclear weapons, and how do we maintain a "safe, secure, and effective" arsenal given the testing moratorium and stockpile issues facing the nuclear complex.  That said, the importance of calling for "hundreds rather than thousands" depends on whether we are talking about 100 or 999 and more importantly what the envisioned timeframe is for making reductiosns these ballparks.  The follow-on to the follow-on might start grappling with numbers in the 1000 ballpark and so figuring out what the force structure options look like at substantially lower levels is a valuable exercise but that certainly doesn't mean those numbers are imminent in the near term future.  With regards to declaratory policy, the NPR should try to break some ground on "what is the role of nukes?" but if there is any narrowing it probably won't be major.  It seems unlikley the NPR splits with both the Strategic Posture Commission and the CFR Task Force, who both endorsed calculated ambiguity, to advocate for  substantial qualification on nuclear use but the statement from the new UN draft about not using nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states could be something considered.  On the "modernization" question, the NPR will clearly try to look at ways to ensure reliability without testing or additional "modernization" but I think there's a good chance their conclusions to that question is "not possible" as evidenced by CongressDaily's reporting that:

In a speech to the Air Force Association conference at the National Harbor convention center in Maryland, Gates previewed findings of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review by endorsing the need to sustain and modernize the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons, including a new warhead design . . . Responding to a question from the audience, Gates said the preliminary nuclear review results showed the need for "large investments" in modernizing nuclear weapons production facilities and retaining weapons development expertise and, "in one or two cases, probably new designs that would be safer and more reliable." . . . Gates said: "We have no desire for new capabilities. We are concerned about modernizing and keeping safe the capability that everyone acknowledges we will need for some considerable period into the future." "I also believe that these capabilities are enablers of arms control and our ability to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile, when we have more confidence in the reliability of our weapons systems,"

But wait: isn't this just an example of problematic findings from the NPR draft Obama has just nixed?  I'm not so sure.  The Guardian's assertion that Obama has called a mulligan on a draft of the NPR is based only off of knowledge from "European Officials."  It seems a bit peculiar that "European Officials," an extremely vague designation, would be privy to knowledge that Obama flunked a draft of the NPR, an ongoing review not due out for months, and leak it to the press while there is nothing said on the matter by the White House, DoD, or the U.S. press.  There's a lot of spectulation that Obama wants to be seen in a good light heading into the 24 September meeting he is chairing but I'm not sure that means he dismissed a review in progress in such a strong manner because "European officials" say so.  Obama has laid out a bold vision for a world without nuclear weapons but he is also a pragmatist.  It is a long, maybe impossible, journy to zero and there are going to be some huge speed bumps on the slow trip.  For example, the Guardian's Sunday article argued that this mysterious NPR draft "appeared to be moving in the opposite direction" of Obama's vision because it is focused on extended deterrence (despite the Prague speech's statement that we will have a reliable deterrent and "guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic").  With the Japanese on edge about the North Korea situation and Eastern Europeans now feeling quezy after the missile defense decision, the NPR might actually actually on to something and not as contratry to the Prague speech as it seems.  While there are debates about how much is needed for extended deterrence and how likely it is countries would actually seek nuclear weapons, most people would probably agree that our allies developing nuclear weapons is a bad thing and would make worldwide disarmament much more difficult. 

Regardless, I have a feeling the NPR will look much more like what Gates hinted at yesterday than what the Guardian is claiming Obama has demanded the NPR say, for better or worse.