(Thanks to PONI coordinator Mark Jansson for some valuable comments)
As the dust settles from the third installment of the Gang of 4 op-ed, the emphasis upon maintaining a strong deterrent as key “as we work to reduce nuclear weaponry and to realize the vision of a world without nuclear weapons” has provided a big enough cake for everyone to take their own slice. Apparently, the op-ed simultaneously rebuffs Kyl’s claims, “broke camp" with past op-eds and "headed back to the nuclear reservation,” emphasized the importance of confidence in deterrence, and had both good and questionable signs. As is oft the case with debates on nuclear issues, how you interpret the op-ed probably depends on your starting point and what sections you choose to quote.
The primary argument highlighted here that didn’t receive as much attention in other coverage of the op-ed is the emphasis upon the importance of ensuring recruiting the best and the brightest to ensure technical competency on nuclear weapons. Travis Sharp, now at CNAS, argued that reports of funding increases in FY2011 and some DoD money for the labs helps alleviate part of the concern but that worries about the mission importance are overstated. He argues:
JASON’s warning about perceived lack of mission importance, however, strikes me as a lesser concern. The nuclear laboratories and the U.S. military should communicate their concerns about morale up the chain of command, and the concerns should be taken into consideration because less-than-happy scientific and military personnel will not maximize U.S. national security. From an arms control perspective, I would add that innovative, technically rigorous, science-based initiatives contribute mightily to nonproliferation, and you are certainly not going to get Teh Scyense from Beltway hacks like yours truly. However, let’s make one thing absolutely clear. While people are an invaluable part of the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise, the FEELINGS of the nuclear bureaucracy should not be the determinative factor when formulating U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In response to JASON’s concern about the perceived lack of mission importance, let me just say that I’m so sorry the Cold War had to end and nuclear weapons work became so much less interesting and such an unstable career path. We should definitely forget about President Obama’s plan to reduce unnecessary nuclear weapons so that it doesn’t scare away the best and brightest lab workers. The job security of U.S. governmental personnel should be the primary driver of U.S. foreign policy, after all. Lest we forget, the commander in chief throws the signs, and the nuclear laboratories and the U.S. military hook up the beats with clout – regardless of how they feel they are progressing on their self-actualization charts. When it comes to determining U.S. nuclear weapons policy, sustaining the morale of governmental personnel in the nuclear complex must not be permitted to trump the primary objective of protecting the American people from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. [emphasis in original]
Sharp raises a few important questions about what it means to have a suitable sense of mission and purpose at the laboratories that desereve further examination. There are three major points to emphasize:
Those of us who support reform of health care have had a bad week or so. With the election of a Republican in the Massachusetts Senate race, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority. President Obama argued against rushing to judgment; if he doesn’t rush, the new Senator will be in place and he will have no time. Nancy Pelosi, after the Massachusetts election results were known, assured the media that a health bill will be forthcoming. That was evidently an empty statement, so she then said she does not have the votes to pass the Senate health care bill in the House.