ArmsControlWonk.com

Apparently, Princess Sparklepony did not and will not sign the follow-on white paper to Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RRW. At least that is what Elaine Grossman reports

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has declined to formally endorse an interagency “white paper” on nuclear deterrence strategy, Global Security Newswire has learned (see GSN, July 25, 2007).

The roughly 30-page document, which has yet to be publicly released, is intended to expand on a four-page statement about nuclear weapons policy issued jointly in July 2007 by three Cabinet secretaries: Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The unclassified version of the new paper has been delayed several times but should be unveiled in the next few weeks, according to Bush administration officials.

The State Department was consulted on the white paper and supports its contents, but has stopped short of officially sponsoring it, Rice’s staff officially confirmed. Aides said Rice opted to leave it to her defense and energy counterparts to issue the new document because it is more technical than last year’s statement, and thus lies outside her diplomatic purview.

As you can see from the story, I don’t blame her one bit. Apparently she learned that important lesson from her parents about not jumping off a bridge just because the other cabinet secretaries did it too.

It is interesting watching the maneuvering among various countries as the Bush Administration comes to an end.

• Indian PM Manmohan Singh decides to make a last push at the US-India nuclear deal.

• Iranian Foreign Minister indicates that, rather than a freeze-for-freeze, Iran will just chill out.

• The Polish PM tells Bush to stick his missile defense interceptors some place else — though negotiations continue.

I remember that inane talking point from Cheney in the 2004 campaign about how it was a great benefit that the sitting Vice-President wouldn’t be running to succeed the President. “I’m not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008,” he said.

That always struck me as the essence of Cheneyism — the idea that accountability and democratic processes were contrary to solid policymaking. I also thought it foolish, as it was certain to magnify the lame-duck effect if the President were unable to assert the possibility of policy continuity in the form of a designated successor.

It is less clear to me today whether the President has more or less leverage with other countries than he would if John McCain were trying to run with him than away from him — Singh, for example, seems jolted into action because his sweetheat deal is about to become null and void. Others, in Iran and Poland, seem unwilling to crawl too far out on a limb that may get sawed off in January 2009.

Interesting times.

I hear the Administration has delivered the Nuclear Strategy Follow-On White Paper a/k/a How I learned to stop worrying and love the RRW to the Hill in time for the FY 2009 budget process.

Of, course, the NSFOWP is classified. But rumors that neither endanger national security nor risk fine and/or imprisonment are encouraged. For example:

• Did the “myths” section make it?

• Is there a (coherent) explanation of how we size our forces today?

• Does it refer to the RRW as “super awesome-tastic”?

In December, I noted a story by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek that Condoleeza Rice would name Paul Wolfowitz to chair the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board.

Well, it is official. (Bloomberg News has a nice exposition with a money quote from Joe Cirincione.)

Although much of the attention is understandably focused on the chair, I am most concerned at how one-sided the overall composition of the board has become, especially since Amy Sands departed in the wake of that awful report they issued on space.

A little housekeeping. The ISAB removed the link to the terms of reference for their forthcoming China study. I have posted the TOR here.

Michael Isikoff in Newsweek reports that Paul Wolfowitz will replace Fred Thompson as Chair of the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job,” said one senior official.

Andrew Sullivan has a better line than I can muster: “He’s advising Condi on WMDs. Curveball wasn’t available?”

I note that Amy Sands left the ISAB in June 2007 — right after that execrable report on outer space policy. She didn’t make a fuss, which was classy.

Still, her departure leaves the board listing ever-rightward. I notice that the ISAB is currently conducting a Study on Chinese Strategic Modernization Plans.

Yikes.

What is the President talking about? Seriously, I am not even making fun. I have no idea:

And, finally, we talked about how we can enhance mutual security issues. And there’s no better symbol of our desire to work for peace and security than working on a missile defense system—a missile defense system that would provide security for Europe from single or dual-launched regimes that may emanate from parts of the world where leaders don’t particularly care for our way of life, and/or in the process of trying to develop serious weapons of mass destruction.

(Hat tip: You know who you are.)

I also appreciate his admonition to defend against those leaders developing “serious weapons of mass destruction”—serious WMD are, presumably, distinguished from the frivolous ones that Saddam was acquiring. (Now I am making fun.)

So, that’s the challenge to you dear readers: Submit your Top 10 “Frivolous” Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I’ll start you off: The Paris Hilton album.

Wasn’t it conservative PJ O’Rourke who said “age and guile beat youth, innocence and bad haircut”?

I missed this, but a couple of weeks ago Al Kamen danced on the grave of the nomination of John Rood, aka the poor man’s Bob Joseph, to be Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security:

Rood Awakening?

When John Rood was nominated to be assistant secretary of state for international security last year, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) reportedly noted that Rood appeared to have a great future but seemed a little too young and inexperienced for the job. But he was a staunch neocon, and with the Republicans in charge, the Senate approved the nomination.

But now Rood, 38, has been nominated to move up to be undersecretary for arms control and international security, and Biden is running the Foreign Relations Committee. The nomination is said to be dead because of Rood’s youth and inexperience.

Given the administration’s policy changes on Iran and North Korea, changes bitterly contested by leading neocons, perhaps it’s just as well. Administration folks are calling around asking for other names for the job. Maybe Robert Einhorn, President Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary for nonproliferation, is available?

I can feel a recess appointment coming on. Brace for more evil from the tiki doll.

So, of all the people left in the Bush Administration, who do think has the coolest record collection?

And, oh, by the way, Mr. Prime Minister, the United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangos.”

President Bush, quipping about the trade deal during the March 2006 press conference with Indian PM Singh annoucning additional measures in the “strategic partnership” formed around the civil nuclear partnership.

***

Well, that day is here!

The Washington Post has a nice fluff piece on “Our Chance To Savor India’s Favored Fruit” that read likes the “American Voices” feature in The Onion.

“People are phoning all day long, asking when we will have them,” the owner of an Indian market in Langley Park told reporter Walter Nicholls. “At home we always eat them. They are the top of the line.”

Hey, who can worry about the spread of nuclear weapons when you have such awesome mangoes?!

“India and the United States began talking about shipping mangoes 17 years ago,” said Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, “Irradiating Indian mangoes safeguards American agriculture while providing additional choices for U.S. consumers in today’s global marketplace.”

Well, damn. You didn’t tell me these were nukular mangoes!

“But this is all in an experimental phase and very new to us,” an importer and distributor told Nicholls, “We expect a shipment within 10 days but can’t say yet where they will go or how much they will cost.”

Uncertain costs and hazy benefits? SIGN ME UP!

Ok, I am annoyed.

I am writing a paper about the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program—an effort to replace the nuclear warheads on two Trident D5 missiles on each of the nation’s 12 SSBNs with a conventional payload.

I think this is a mildly pointless idea. I admire General Cartwright’s determination to equip his command with nonnuclear forces as part of an inevitable reduction of our reliance on nuclear weapons and a sincere desire to do something useful. It just isn’t clear to me that CTM is the way toward that future.

But, hey, the program is cheap—around 500 million bucks. As mildly pointless programs go, this is a bargain. (By comparison, the Air Force’s Conventional Strike Missile screams “schedule delays” and “cost overruns.”)

I do worry that the Russians might misinterpret a CTM launch, but General Cartwright has made lots of noise about improving data exchange with the Russians to manage the risk. If Cartwright can get the Joint Data Exchange Center up-and-running, I’d be willing to have the Treasury cut the man a check for $500 million directly. He can spend the cash on CTM, hookers, blow, Sands of Iwo Jima DVDs, whatever. Hell, every dollar that Cartwright spends is one that DARPA can’t waste on chembots, hafnium bombs or the other crazy ideas they come up with while high.

Anyway, the point. I wanted to check in on the cost estimates and program of work for CTM in the 2008 President’s Budget Request (PBR) to illustrate that the program has the twin virtues of being inexpensive and relatively easy to implement.

Last year (FY2007 PBR), the President asked for $127 million for the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program. Congress put the program on hold and cut the budget, pending a National Academies Study.

The Descriptive Summary for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems, in the FY07 President’s Budget Request, contained the best factual information about the CTM program. The descriptive summary, also known as an R2, included the handy little chart (above) showing program milestones and the future funding breakdowns (below).

Source: PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems

Helpful, huh? You can see they thought they could crank this puppy out in two years. So, I decided to get the most recent budget data for FY2008.

DOD didn’t release a descriptive summary for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems this year. The information isn’t classified—the R1 clearly requests $126.4 million for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System. Moreover, the Chief of Naval Operations stated that ”$175 million is included in the FY 2008 request” for CTM. (Subtracting the $100 million in the two procurement accounts, that leaves about $75 million in PE 0604327N is for Conventional Trident.)

So, why refuse to release the descriptive summary? There must be a story here.

Late Update Okay, the PE was released here but not here. I could swear I looked in both places. Weird. Thanks, Robot Economist.

Al Kamen include a funny little blurb in this week’s “In The Loop”:

Are you opposed to nuclear proliferation? Are you a current or maybe former civil servant eligible for the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Program? Then hurry up and apply for the great job of “Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation.”

[snip]

You’d be working in the office that was headed by former Pentagon civil servant and recent political appointee Robert G. Joseph, who just left the undersecretary job at State suggesting publicly that the North Korea nuke deal was immoral.

He’s now a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy.
Its Web site says “he also serves as U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation.”

Oh. Guess it’s already filled. Never mind.

On the same front, David Sanger pens a long valentine to one of his favorite sources, where he also mentions Joseph’s role as a “part-time presidential envoy on proliferation issues.”