February, 2010

By John K. Warden

In Prague last April, President Obama announced “a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.”

Now almost a year later, Obama’s commitment will be tested.  The FY11 budget increases for nuclear security in the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Energy budgets.  However, there’s still more that can be done.

Kenneth Luongo, president and founder of the Partnership for Global Security, wrote a policy brief in November 2009 that included a number of good recommendations, many which have not yet been adopted.

For example:

• Provide all relevant programs with “notwithstanding authority” for 10 percent of their total yearly budgets for contingency purposes.
• Ensure that all relevant programs have the authority to receive contributions from foreign governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations for specific nonproliferation objectives.
• Allow for accelerated transfer authority among agencies to meet unforeseen challenges quickly.

Luongo also argues that the United States should extend and expand the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, and, in a more recent article, proposes an agenda for a successful nuclear security summit in April.

Continued U.S. support, including adequate funding, will is essential to any effort to secure nuclear material.  However, a potentially more difficult obstacle to overcome will be securing partner country cooperation.

In a 2008 article suggesting priorities for U.S. nuclear security efforts, Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School, highlights the difficulty in building relationships around securing sensitive materials:

FISSILE MATERIAL
China, Russia could back symbolic Iran sanctions
Reuters by Louis Charbonneau

No "New START" in 2010, Hill sources predict
The Cable by Josh Rogin

The Administration's Nuclear Games
Weekly Standard by Michael Anton

Obama's Nuclear Moment
Foreign Policy by David E. Hoffman

By Chris Jones

As wonks everywhere anxiously await the release of the so-close-yet-so-far Nuclear Posture Review, one of the biggest unknowns is what the NPR will say about the role of nuclear weapons. Laura Rozen’s article last week about Biden’s speech contains yet another reformulation:

While appointees like Miller, and those from Tauscher's and Biden's shops are stepping up their role in the posture review, sources still expect that it will disappoint some on the left of the arms control community for not adopting, for instance, a no-first-use policy despite the urging of some allies like Japan.  Instead, disarmament experts expect the forthcoming NPR to state something along the lines of “The U.S. maintains nuclear weapons in order to deter or respond” to a nuclear attack, without explicitly saying “the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on the U.S.” or to declare that the U.S. pledges to never use nuclear weapons first.  But the Union of Concerned Scientists' Stephen Young said progressives appreciate the constraints under which the administration is working. "Administration officials have been clear that, by setting out a more limited role for nuclear weapons, they want to make a sharp change from the 2001 Bush posture review," he said.

Over the past year, there has been increasingly recognition that, much like the debate about warhead modernization, there can be a “spectrum of options” about the role of nuclear weapons opposed to a binary between calculated ambiguity and No First Use. There’s a lot of weight riding on precisely how this statement gets phrased as the administration tries to successfully triangulate between reducing the role of nuclear weapons and satisfying deterrence and extended deterrence commitments. Striking the phrase “sole purpose” is an interesting change. While the spirit of the two statements above is probably very similar, one has to wonder how differences between the two could play out. Describing why nuclear weapons are maintained implicitly suggests their role yet fails to provide quite the same level of clarity as “sole purpose” (which provides less clarity than a complete No First Use declaration, for better or worse). Though nuclear weapons are “maintained” for a purpose (to deter nuclear weapons), that statement does not appear to explicitly foreclose their use for a purpose different than they the reason they are maintained. This may be chalked up to semantic squabbling or more unhelpful “what-ifs” but highlighting the differences between these formulations can shed light on all the different viewpoints the administrations are trying to resolve with different iterations of how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons.

Assuming the Nuclear Posture Review comes down somewhere in this ambiguous middle area between calculated ambiguity and No First Use, there will be two PR challenges facing the administration. The first is to convince those, at home and abroad, opposed to reducing the role of nuclear weapons that the U.S. didn’t give the deterrence farm away. These nonbinding formulations provide the administration some wiggle room but at the end of the day the spirit of these formulations still would seek to limit out, for example, the role of nuclear weapons in deterring CBW attacks. If the exchange in Survival is any indication, opinions on the issue are far from settled and so having a comprehensive explanation of how the United States deters CBW attacks and other missions eliminted by this new nuclear statement of purpose will be important.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran Letter Repeats Nuclear Swap Terms Rejected by West
NYT by Alan Cowell

U.S. will use banks to thwart Iran nukes
Washington Times by Eli Lake

EU Plans Massive Sanctions Against Iran
Der Spiegel by Hans-Jürgen Schlamp

Medvedev, Obama May Talk on Arms Treaty, Russian Official Says
Bloomberg by Viola Gienger

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran says any fuel swap must be on its territory
Reuters by Ramin Mostafavi and Hashem Kalantari

US, partners step up consultations on NKorea
AFP

Revisiting Biden's nuclear speech
Politico by Laura Rozen

Nuclear Agency Officials Defend Rate of Warhead Dismantlement
GSN by Martin Matishak

By Andrew St. Denis

Courtesy of ISIS and ACW, the IAEA last Thursday released its latest report on the Iranian nuclear program.

On February 8, Iran sent a letter to the IAEA, notifying them of the imminent transfer of low-enriched uranium into their Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. Despite IAEA requests to the contrary, on February 9, Iran began feeding LEU into the cascade enriching to 20 percent in advance of the arrival of IAEA inspectors, something the IAEA was none too happy about. Since then, Iran has moved much of its LEU stock into the adjacent feed station. Point 12 under the report’s section on Natanz stands out in particular:

So it appears the NPR is delayed yet again.   What was previously "early March" according to Tauscher is now "late March or April" according to Laura Rozen: 

With nuclear disarmament a signature issue for Obama, the administration is hashing out the tough issues ahead of the delayed release of its Nuclear Posture Review, now expected out in late March or April.

Disarmament hands say the review draft originally headed by the Defense Department’s Brad Roberts was too status quo on the policy issues from the White House's perspective, and is being reworked at the senior inter-agency level by Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, officials from the office of State’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher, and White House and OVP nonproliferation advisors before heading to the president’s desk.

“On content, the president and vice president want a more ambitious disarmament and non-proliferation agenda than many people they appointed,” Cirincione said. “And in this field, no question, the president is the transformer in chief. He is driving the agenda. It’s no secret that the president has been somewhat disappointed in the pace of change on this."

What they got in the NPR draft to date is however “very modest adjustments to the existing strategy, when they wanted fundamental change,” Cirincione said.

Two NSC Senior Directors responsible for the NPR, NSC Senior Director for Defense Barry Panel, who held the role for the Bush administration, and George Look, are career civil servants considered to have a generally more traditional approach to the issue. "If you want a transformational document, you don't ask two men who have spent a combined forty years in the burueacracy to do this job; they will provide you a status quo document," another non proliferation hand said. "The third appointee, Brad Roberts, who controlled the pen on the NPR at the Pentagon, was the author of the controversial Perry-Schlesinger report, widely dunned by progressives because it perpetuated a hawish Cold War approach on nuclear weapons policy."

Much like the ongoing START negotiations, trying to set a hard and fast deadline on when the NPR will be complete has proven to be a futile exercise.  

By Micah J. Loudermilk

While the forthcoming (barring any additional delays) Nuclear Posture Review is certainly the nuclear highlight of 2010, the year holds in store a number of other important happenings as well: the 2010 NPT Review Conference, an April summit on securing loose nuclear material, the pursuit of CTBT ratification, the completion of a new START treaty, and a renewed commitment – complete with funding – from the Obama administration to the U.S. nuclear infrastructure. In essence, all of these are pieces of a much larger puzzle – President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons, outlined to the world in his Prague speech. While the nuclear table is clearly extremely full already this year, perhaps it would be wise to consider adding something else to the mix: a nonproliferation posture review. While many people may see this as wholly unnecessary, given that all of the topics above deal with nonproliferation in some capacity, it seems clear that a review of this type could serve as the catalyst for a reassessment of U.S. nonproliferation goals in addition to providing a base for global action on nonproliferation objectives. More specifically, a nonproliferation review would demonstrate U.S. commitment to and leadership on the nonproliferation front and most importantly, unite the increasingly fractured global nonproliferation regime. The last point is of key importance because the world – not just the United States – faces an array of nuclear problems that the existing framework is simply unable to handle and some of which are discussed here.

Potential for Progress: India and Pakistan 

Iran and North Korea aside for now, the India-Pakistan front is one area where significant, and purposeful, progress is possible in the near future. The bitter relationship between the two countries not only complicates the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, but is constantly shadowed by the specter of nuclear arsenals. Without either country as a signatory of the NPT, the regime is significantly weakened. The good news here though is that both countries have signaled a willingness to negotiate on the subject – agreeing to meet on February 25. A significant shift in the state of things-nuclear in India and Pakistan, mediated by the United States, could provide a much-needed boost to the nonproliferation regime. Additionally, India has expressed an interest in joining the NPT as a nuclear weapons state, which, while containing a slew of potential problems (including Pakistan’s probable echoing of India), may be a helpful step. As put by David Fidler and Sumit Ganguly: 

India’s willingness to join the NPT contains the potential to strengthen the NPT…but to exclude a nuclear-armed but non-proliferating India when it is now willing to join would not strengthen efforts against nuclear proliferation.

Additionally, Luv Puri writes that:

PONI Debates the Issues has chosen to postpone the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) event current slated for 2 March due to the very likely prospect that the NPR will not be out in time.   We are in the process of working to reschedule the event and will let people know as soon as we have a new date.  

FISSILE MATERIAL
Diet members send Obama nuclear letter
Japan Times by Masami Ito

Allied bid for Obama to remove US European nuclear stockpile
AFP by Pascal Mallet

U.S. to retire nuclear Tomahawk missiles, Japan told
Kyodo News

The force needed to contain Iran
WP by James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh

By John K. Warden

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), originally scheduled to be released with the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and FY11 Budget on February 1, has been further delayed.

Now, the NPR is expected in early March, but a week or two after the previously announced March 1 deadline.

Josh Rogin noted the delay a couple days ago, citing a speech by Ellen Tauscher:

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said in a speech Wednesday that the NPR is expected to come out in early March, a little later than the March 1 deadline previously announced and much later than the original Dec. 1 deadline.

Whether a "little later" means later in the first week of March or into the second or third week is unclear.

Laura Rozen explained where the process was at earlier this week:

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran might be seeking to develop nuclear weapons capability, inspectors say
WP by Joby Warrick and Scott Wilson

IAEA Suspects Syrian Nuclear Activity At Bombed Site
Reuters

North Korea Says It Won’t Swap Nuclear Arms for Aid
Bloomberg by Mark Williams

Obama to Seek Ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
NYT by David E. Sanger

FISSILE MATERIAL
Biden to Push Test-Ban Treaty
WSJ by Jonathan Weisman

Experts Voice Concern Over U.S. Nuclear Policy Review
GSN

Missile defense not a threat to U.S.-Russia "reset"
Reuters by Phil Stewart

Iran refuses to stop enrichment in return for isotopes
AFP

By Chris Jones

Last night, PONI hosted the sixth installment of its “PONI Live Debates” series. The debated featured Baker Spring from the Heritage Foundation and John Isaacs from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The topic for the debate was as follows:

Further reductions in the nuclear arsenal are in the national security interest of the United States.

Isaacs provided the opening statement taking the affirmative side of the argument. His speech focused on the strong bipartisan consensus favoring reductions in the arsenal including names like Schlesinger, Payne, Woolsey, and Ikle. Furthermore, he argued that the ongoing START treaty provides a valuable limit on arsenals which is preferable to the alternatives of no treaty or a weak SORT treaty. Lastly, he emphasized the world has changed and nuclear reductions are important to help reduce the risk of a proliferation “tipping point” and the prospect of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Spring’s opening statement took a far different approach. While he was not opposed to certain reductions depending on the time and circumstance, he made clear that time is not now. Nuclear weapons continue to play an important role, particularly in crises stability situations that will only become more difficult in an increasingly complex world of nuclear multipolarity. Spring relied heavily on the following chart:

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran leader accuses U.S. of "war-mongering"
Reuters by Reza Derakhshi and Fredrik Dahl

Iran Policy Now More in Sync With Clinton’s Views
NYT by Mark Landler
2/17/10

Russia says U.S. anti-missile shield plans could affect talks on arms cuts pact
RIA Novosti

Obama's Nuclear Decision Day
Huffington Post by Joe Cirincione

PONI Debates the Issues will host its first debate of 2010 tonight here at CSIS.  There are still a few seats available for those interested.  The information is as follows: 

Debaters: John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation

Topic: Further reductions in the nuclear arsenal are in the national security interest of the United States.

Date: Tonight (February 16, 2010)

Time: 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm

Location: CSIS (1800 K St NW) B1 Conference Center

To RSVP for the event, contact Chris Jones via e-mail here or by phone at (202) 775-3234.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran says no new nuke offer, blames translation error
AFP

Clinton warns of Mideast nuclear arms race
WP by Glenn Kessler

Russia Seeks Quid Pro Quo to Rein Iran In
NYT by John Vinocur

Steps toward nuke-free world
Japan Times by Daisaku Ikeda

By Mark Jansson
 

The 2010 PONI Conference Series will commence on April 8 – 9 here at CSIS. This year’s series presents an excellent opportunity to surface new ideas and analyses that may improve our ability to address key issues during what will inevitably be a pivotal year for U.S. nuclear policy and the worldwide effort to prevent nuclear proliferation. Those who haven’t done so already are invited to visit the event web page and to check out the call for presentations. The purpose of this post is to simply re-issue the invitation and to encourage readers to forward the invitation to others who may be interested in attending or perhaps delivering a presentation.

The need for new thinking and vigorous discussion is indeed pressing. By now most of the PONI blog readers will have seen an announcements for the nuclear security fellowships at RAND, Harvard, IISS, Stanford and CFR. These are truly timely and appropriate investments made in the name of a man, Frank Stanton, who was tapped by President Eisenhower to serve as part of the “Eisenhower Ten” group of state administrators that would take over the functions of government in the event of a catastrophic emergency, specifically a nuclear war that decapitated the government – an ominous possibility that nearly came to pass during his successor’s term in office.

As these fellowships were being announced, Foreign Policy’s Stephen Walt published a short piece on a possible renaissance in academic thinking on nuclear issues. He reflects, with lament, on the dip in interest in nuclear weapons issues since the end of the Cold War. In his view, this occurred in part because “there hasn't been that much new to say about the subject; the essential features of deterrence theory are well-established by now, and the infeasibility of any sort of ‘nuclear war’ seems to be pretty well-understood.”

By Chris Jones

PONI Debates the Issues is proud to announce the launch of its new "Nuclear Reactions" feature.  This new section of the blog will feature questions that are periodically sent to top nuclear experts with their short response posted.  The first topic deals with the FY11 budget and the Obama adminstration's goals of maintaining a "safe, secure, and effective" arsenal while also moving toward a world without nuclear weapons.  The full wording of the topic and responses can be found here.    Future entries will also be cross-posted to the blog homepage.   The homepage of the "Nuclear Reactions" feature can be found here. 

FISSILE MATERIAL

Top N. Korean nuclear negotiator set to visit U.S. in March: source
Yonhap News

Iran hails nuclear advance on Revolution Day
Reuters by Parisa Hafezi and Ross Colvin

Obama Takes Several Gambles in Bid to Defuse Nuclear Standoff With Iran
NYT News Analysis by David E. Sanger

India Set to Launch Agni 5 Missile Within Year
GSN

U.N. vents frustration at stalled arms control forum
Reuters by Stephanie Nebehay

By Chris Jones

For some time now, those concerned about the Obama administration’s lack of effort on the “safe, secure, and effective” part of the Prague agenda felt that the FY 11 Budget Request was a key opportunity for the administration to put its money where its mouth is. In some respects, the FY11 budget does just that. As the AP reported, the FY11 budget provides an additional $624 million for weapons activities within the NNSA budget (in addition to large plus-ups to counterproliferation). This is largely consistent with what President Biden laid out in his recent op-ed and what the Four Statesman said was a necessary part of the effort to move toward a world without nuclear weapons. Not surprisingly, some lambasted the decision to put more money in “weapons activities” for nuclear weapons. For example, the AP article states:

Greg Mello, director of the nuclear watchdog Los Alamos Study Group, said budgets for NNSA and DOE have increased in recent years, but the nation ''hasn't seen any increase in weapons activities like this since the early years of Ronald Reagan.'' He called the budget ''a complete surrender to Senate Republicans,'' who have argued that stockpile reductions must be accompanied by a modernized nuclear weapons complex.

From an even more sensationalist view, Carol Driver’s piece in the Daily Mail is titled “Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush.” Driver argues:

President Obama is planning to increase spending on America's nuclear weapons stockpile just days after pledging to try to rid the world of them. In his budget to be announced on Monday, Mr Obama has allocated £4.3billion to maintain the U.S. arsenal - £370million more than George Bush spent on nuclear weapons in his final year. The Obama administration also plans to spend a further £3.1billion over the next five years on nuclear security. The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday. And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

FISSILE MATERIAL
U.S.: North should suit words, deeds
JoongAng Daily by Yoo Jee-ho

U.S. unveils offer to help Iran purchase medical isotopes
WP by Glenn Kessler

Obama Pushes Sanctions to Block Iran’s Path Toward Nuclear Bomb
Bloomberg by Ladane Nasseri and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan

U.S. Senate Republicans could use START to derail Obama's disarmament agenda, says arms expert
Xinhua by Lucy-Claire Saunders

FISSILE MATERIAL

China's role positive in efforts to resume N. Korea nuclear talks: Seoul official

Yonhap News by Lee Chi-dong

Iran Begins Further Uranium Processing
NYT by Alan Cowell and Thom Shanker

West's Iran concern is valid-Russia security chief
Reuters

Russia Enacts New Military Doctrine
GSN

Iran’s Two-Edged Bomb
NYT Op-ed by Adam B. Lowther

FISSILE MATERIAL

Kim Jong-il meets Chinese delegates amid hopes for 6-way talks
Yonhap News

Iran’s President Moves Ahead on Uranium Processing
NY Times by Michael Slackman and David Sanger

Gates says it's not too late for Iran sanctions
Yahoo! News by Anne Flaherty (AP)

India offers to revive talks with Pakistan
LA Times by AP

Russia and U.S. Lead Calls to Reduce Nuclear Arsenals
NY Times by Judy Dempsey

By John K. Warden

Russia and the United States have reached an “agreement in principle” on a new START.

According to some reports, the major issues have been worked out and we should expect an agreement soon.  As I wrote a couple weeks ago, the major hold-up in negotiations was verification details, specifically the sharing of telemetry data.  According to Jonathan Weisman at the Wall Street Journal, that and other disagreements were worked out in the last couple weeks:

The breakthrough on a follow-on treaty to the now-lapsed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty came two weeks ago when National Security Adviser James Jones and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Moscow to work through two issues on verification, the sharing of data on missile flight tests and inspections at missile production facilities, White House officials said.
The deal was approved in principle last week during a phone conversation between Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Under the agreement, the Russians will share flight-test data, something they had resisted as they develop more-modern ballistic missiles. But monitoring of a key ballistic-missile site in Russia, which ended in 2008, won't resume, according to officials familiar with the accord.

However, many are skeptical of the report.  After all, various Russian and American officials have said an agreement was “very close” and “nearing completion” for months now.  Is “agreement in principle” just another way of saying “almost there”?

After all, Weisman’s article and others quote officials on both sides saying that translating the agreement to treaty text could take months.  A Russian presidential aide said that it would be realistic to expect a signed agreement by March or April.

If in fact the major issues have been resolved, then the latest reports might mean more than “almost there.”  There has already been speculation about where the signing ceremony will take place, and a Russian lawmaker is planning on visiting the United States to begin coordinating the ratification effort.  These are signs that agreement on START is less a matter of if then when.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran has not yet informed IAEA of nuclear deal, say diplomats
Deutsche Presse-Agentur

China could block sanctions against Iran
WP by Glenn Kessler

Russia says US tactical nukes must be withdrawn from Europe - FM
Itar-Tass

U.S., Russia called on to reduce nuclear warheads to 1,000
Xinhua

PONI is happy to announce the first live debate of its 2010 series.   John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, will be debating Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation on nuclear reductions.  The details are as follows: 

Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Time: 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm

Location: CSIS (1800 K St NW) B1 Conference Center

Topic: Resolved: further reductions in the nuclear arsenal are in the national security interest of the United States.

 To RSVP for the event, contact Chris Jones via e-mail here or by phone at (202) 775-3234.  Seats will go quickly so RSVP as soon as possible.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran seeking nuke compromise — or is it?
AP by George Jahn

Petraeus says strike on Iran could spark nationalism
Reuters by Phil Stewart

Russia ready for dialogue with EU over tactical nukes, but that it cannot get through to its partners – Lavrov
Itar-Tass

US Nuclear Weapons Site in Europe Breached
FAS Strategic Security Blog by Hans M. Kristensen

By Andrew St. Denis

Last Friday, PONI kicked off its 2010 Nuclear Scholars Initiative with a seminar on the Nuclear Posture Reviews, which have shaped not just U.S. nuclear policy, but also international perceptions of U.S. policy. Chaired by director Clark Murdock, the event featured discussions with National Defense University’s Elaine Bunn, the National Institute for Public Policy’s Keith Payne, and Amy Woolf of the Congressional Research Service. Ambassador Linton Brooks also joined in the seminar to provide insights from his long experience in the nuclear community.

The "PONI Debates the Issues" blog welcomes readers to the new "Nuclear Reactions" feature.  The purpose of the feature is to solicit reactions from top nuclear experts about major developments on nuclear issues.  Event driven questions will be sent to contributors periodically and responses will be posted as they are received.  For a list of contributors, visit the about page.  Without further ado, the first "Nuclear Reaction" topic is as follows:

On the heels of major op-eds by the Four Statesmen and Vice President Biden, the budget request for FY11 (and out years) contains increases for NNSA. Do these investments strike the right balance between maintaining a “safe, secure, and effective” nuclear arsenal while trying to meet the Obama administration’s goal of reducing the role of nuclear weapons?

 Expert reactions by:

• Clark Murdock- CSIS Senior Adviser and PONI Director
• James Tegnelia- Former Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency

FISSILE MATERIAL
Ahmadinejad backs deal to remove bulk of enriched uranium from Iran
WP by Thomas Erdbrink and Glenn Kessler

China unlikely to block Iran sanctions
WP by Steven R. Hurst (AP)

U.S., Russia Close In on Nuclear Treaty
WSJ by Jonathan Weisman

Obama budget seeks 13.4 percent increase for National Nuclear Security Administration
WP by Walter Pincus

By John K. Warden

Last week, I used the leaked draft of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to predict the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).  This week, the final draft of the QDR was released on the DoD website.

The final document is, in many ways, similar to the draft.  It follows the same outline and, in some places, the paragraphs are unchanged.  However, in others, including many of the sections that discuss nuclear weapons, the document includes new language and ideas.

Sometimes, these changes appear cosmetic.  For example, while the final document does not include the sentence that explicitly connected the QDR and the NPR, it includes a footnote that serves the same purpose:

By congressional direction, DoD has conducted reviews of U.S. nuclear strategy and forces, ballistic missile defense, and space assets and operations in addition to the QDR. The findings of these reviews are being reported separately, but key insights were drawn on for this report.

There are other minor changes.  The first sentence of the paragraph that identifies nuclear proliferation as a key trend changed from:  “Of grave concern, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) undermines global security, further complicating efforts to sustain peace and prevent harmful arms races.” to “The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) continues to undermine global security, complicating efforts to sustain peace and prevent harmful arms races.”  Although “of grave concern” was removed, it would be reading too much into this change to conclude that the final document somehow deemphasizes nuclear proliferation.

However, in other areas the changes between the draft and the final QDR seem more important.  The section that highlights the importance of deterrence and ways the United States should continue to strengthen it includes significant changes.  Here’s the text from the draft:

By Chris Jones

The Hertog Global Strategy Initiative at Columbia has announced that the topic for the 2010 seminar (24 May-13 August) will be "Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of World Power." From the website:

Students in the program spend the first three weeks of the summer in “total immersion” training in nuclear strategy and the methods of international history. The following eight weeks are spent conducting independent and team projects. In August, the class reconvenes and participants present their research and produce a joint report. The program is intended to demonstrate the potential for collaborative historical research on critical issues in international affairs.

The faculty for the seminar includes:

The 2010 Initiative will be taught by Matthew Connelly, Professor of History at Columbia University, and Francis Gavin, Professor of International Affairs, University of Texas. They will be assisted in the classroom by a number of experts in the field, including world-class scholars and top government officials. Confirmed speakers and workshop participants include Graham Allison, Richard Betts, Hans Blix, Paul Bracken, John Lewis Gaddis, Robert Gallucci, Bonnie Jenkins, Robert Jervis, Henry Kissinger, Michael Levi, Scott Sagan, Etel Solingen, James Steinberg, Stephen Van Evera, and Philip Zelikow. The 2010 program will run from May 24 through August 13.
 

Application information is here.   Looks like a great program.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran criticizes U.S. missile deployments in Gulf
Reuters by Hossein Jaseb and Hashem Kalantari

Next, the Tactical Nukes
NYT by Carl Bildt and Radek SIkorski

U.S., Russian negotiators in final push for START pact
Reuters

Halt START negotiations
Washington Times by Adm. James A. Lyons

By Chris Jones

Despite all the recent attention to declaratory policy in the NPR, one of the toughest questions for this administration to answer will be how to square maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable arsenal while trying to shore up the U.S. image on nonproliferation internationally to gain much needed cooperation. This battle has picked up steam based on the language of the Defense Authorization Act requiring the plan for the arsenal to be tied to START.  This was reinforced by the letter sent to Obama from 41 Senators.

For quite some time, there has been a perception in the press that this interagency tug of war on this question has featured Vice President Biden in one corner and Secretary Gates in another. For example, Elaine Grossman’s 6 January article about the NPR delay explains:

At the same time, the White House is exploring how it might modernize the existing nuclear stockpile. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has advocated a more ambitious approach to updating the arsenal than some other top leaders, including Vice President Joseph Biden, have supported (see GSN, Sept. 24, 2009). In Gates' perspective, further nuclear arms reductions can safely be made only if the remaining arsenal continues to credibly deter attacks on the United States and its allies, and the defense secretary has said that requires a replacement program for older warheads. By contrast, Biden reportedly has argued that manufacturing new nuclear warheads could undermine Washington's ability to build an international coalition to curb the spread of atomic arms to nations like Iran.

The answer to how these seemingly opposing views will reconcile became much clearer with Vice President Biden’s op-ed in the WSJ late last week. Previewing the budget that will be announced today, Biden explains:

Our budget devotes $7 billion for maintaining our nuclear-weapons stockpile and complex, and for related efforts. This commitment is $600 million more than Congress approved last year. And over the next five years we intend to boost funding for these important activities by more than $5 billion