|
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is the Council’s affiliated 501(c)(3) research organization. |
|
RUSSIA CONTINUES THREATS, LAUNCHES NEW ICBM AND TIGHTENS RELATIONSHIP WITH BELARUS In response to U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes into Russia using U.S. supplied weapons, Moscow symbolically lowered the threshold for nuclear use in its doctrine, stating that Russia would use nuclear weapons not only in response to a nuclear attack, but also to respond to a “critical threat” to Russia’s or Belarus’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity.” This is the first time Russia has directly placed Belarus under its nuclear umbrella in its doctrine. Senior Policy Director John Erath told Newsweek that this is merely an “intimidation tactic.” “It was updated to be a little bit more threatening, but the spirit of the thing is very much the same. Again, we look at it in terms of the overall Russian strategy of persuading countries supporting Ukraine that it’s going to cost them more in every sense to continue to support Ukraine than it would to make a quick peace and get out.” Russia further escalated by using a new intermediate-range “hypersonic” missile, the Oreshnik, in a November 21 strike on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Russian President Vladimir Putin lauded the Oreshnik as immune to any missile defense system and stated its power could match that of a nuclear weapon. Putin’s remarks come as part of a flurry of recent Kremlin nuclear threats and intimidation meant to dissuade the West from further supporting Ukraine. Erath told Newsweek that this new missile changes nothing, however. “They already have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons wherever they want. This particular missile is nuclear capable, so you can put a nuclear weapon on it. So, if it’s launched toward Western Europe, it is explicitly a nuclear threat. Because you don’t know what the warhead is until the thing lands and explodes.“ Putin and Belarus’s President Alexander Lukashenko tightened their countries’ relationship by signing a security guarantee as well as publicly discussing Russia’s recent deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and the future deployment of Oreshnik to Belarus in 2025. This series of escalations comes at a moment of uncertainty in the war as there are questions over the incoming Trump administration’s stance on future aid and support for Ukraine. FURTHER READING: John Erath in Newsweek: Could Putin Use a Nuclear Weapon in Ukraine? 3 Experts Weigh In | John Erath in Voice of America: From VOA Russian and VOA Ukrainian: US experts analyze Moscow’s nuclear threats |
|
NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA STRENGTHEN RELATIONSHIP BUT SYRIA SHOULD PROVIDE A CAUTIONARY TALE On December 5, North Korea’s mutual defense pact with Russia officially entered into force, formalizing closer military cooperation between the two nations. As part of this growing partnership, reports have emerged that Russia has provided advanced air defense systems to North Korea to help it offset the outmoded defense systems it relies on for air defense. In response to these developments, NATO leaders warned that Russia’s support likely will accelerate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and that Western leaders cannot be “naïve” about this simple reality. Following Trump’s reelection, Kim Jong Un reiterated that North Korea would not give up its nuclear arsenal, and its partnership with Russia ensures that Pyongyang can avoid returning to the negotiating table while maintaining its nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has some critical lessons for North Korea, writes Research Analyst Shawn Rostker in his latest post for the Center’s Nukes of Hazard blog: relying on Russia is a gamble it can’t afford to take lightly, and U.S. policymakers should take note of the opportunity this presents. “If conflict broke out on the Korean Peninsula, Russia would be in no position to come to Kim’s rescue. Its forces are entrenched in Ukraine and its resources are depleting. Russia has a long road ahead until it will be able to recapitalize and rebuild its conventional forces. The Syria episode demonstrates what happens when a patron state cannot — or will not — deliver in a time of need. Russia’s support may come in the form of arms deals, fuel shipments, or commitments on paper, but it does not take priority over its own grand ambitions of territorial expansion.” |
|
LAWMAKERS PUSH BIDEN TO CURB SOLE AUTHORITY BEFORE INAUGURATION Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA-36) urged President Joe Biden to limit the president’s authority to use nuclear weapons first without consulting Congress or anyone else. In a letter, the lawmakers call on the president to change current U.S. policy to require congressional approval before any first use of nuclear weapons. It would not restrict the president’s power to retaliate against a nuclear strike. Sen. Markey and Rep. Lieu have long pushed for a policy to restrict the president’s sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. Rep. Lieu first introduced a bill to do so before President-elect Donald Trump was elected in 2016, when many people suspected a different election outcome. Rep. Lieu spoke to the Center’s Nukes of Hazard podcast in 2017 explaining that the purpose of the bill is to “put a check and balance on the president as a structural matter,” regardless of who the president is. When Sen. Markey and Rep. Lieu reintroduced this legislation in 2019, Executive Director John Tierney spoke at a press conference alongside them and urged bipartisan support for a policy change: “There are those who would argue that we should have a thermonuclear monarchy — that one individual, one executive, should be able to make the decision about whether or not we fire off nuclear weapons. That is not the way our founders structured our Constitution — they made very clear that an act of war would be initiated by Congress. I think this bill reiterates that very clearly, to make sure that people know that, yes, we always reserve to our executive the right to respond, if our allies, our forces or our country is attacked. But in terms of initiating a nuclear war, there is no legal, there is no military and there certainly is no moral basis for believing that that power ought to rest in one person — essentially a thermonuclear monarch… Democrats and Republicans alike ought to be able to line up behind (this bill), and it should be an issue in every district in Congress and every state in the country.” |
|
CHINA HOSTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TALKS WITH UNITED STATES, UK, FRANCE AND RUSSIA On December 5, China hosted nuclear weapons talks in Beijing as part of efforts to convene the P5 nuclear-armed states (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China). The discussions focused on the risks of nuclear escalation, particularly in Europe amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Chinese officials emphasized the need for restraint and dialogue among nuclear powers, while expressing concerns about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine and its implications for global security. The talks underscored the P5’s role in maintaining stability, even as tensions remain high between several member states. China has also continued work on its fast-breeder nuclear reactor program, raising concerns over increased plutonium production, the main impediment to more rapid growth of China’s nuclear stockpile. On November 16, President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their agreement that humans — not artificial intelligence — must control nuclear weapons, marking a rare point of cooperation between the two nations on nuclear issues. |
|
INDIA INCREASES MARITIME CAPABILITIES On December 2, India successfully tested the intermediate-range K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile from its first nuclear-powered ballistic submarine, the INS Arighat. Earlier in the month, India also conducted a flight test of a purported short-range hypersonic glide vehicle, advancing its efforts to match other global powers in hypersonic weapons technology. Meanwhile, on December 10 India launched the INS Vikrant aircraft carrier, a warship intended to strengthen maritime power projection in the Indo-Pacific. |
|
IRAN ESCALATES URANIUM ENRICHMENT BUT AGREES TO NEW SAFEGUARDS On December 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released an interim report sounding the alarm on increased enrichment activities at Iran’s Fordow enrichment plant. IAEA director Rafael Grossi shared that Iran plans to accelerate its enrichment of uranium to up to 60% purity, which dangerously approaches the 90% needed for weapons-grade material. With these changes in place, Iran will be able to produce more than 34kg per month of uranium enriched up to 60%, which represents a sharp increase from previous production rates. However, on December 12, Reuters reported that Iran agreed to increase “the frequency and intensity of the implementation of safeguards measures” by the IAEA at the Fordow facility, continuing to deny any claims that it plans to create a nuclear weapon. As Iran faces a deterioration of its strategic depth in Syria and Lebanon as well as a fears of a hostile incoming Trump administration, this increase in enrichment activities is cause for serious concern for Iran watchers. The looming October 2025 deadline for the snapback of UN sanctions by European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, adds yet another layer of complexity to track moving forward. |
|
FIRST ‘MUST-PASS’ BILL SET TO GO Congress is in its final sprint to the holidays with major legislation unfinished. One piece, the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is poised for passage despite last-minute complications. The NDAA, which authorizes $895 billion for defense and other national security spending, passed the House of Representatives on December 11 in a 281-140 vote. The Senate will likely consider the NDAA this week before leaving town for the holidays. The NDAA normally enjoys even stronger bipartisan support, but a last-minute political decision caused consternation from both sides of the aisle. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) inserted a provision at the eleventh hour banning coverage for certain gender-affirming care for minors under the Tricare military healthcare program. The highly political language led a majority of Democrats to vote against the legislation along with conservative hardliners. The Center’s analysis of the final NDAA breaks nuclear-related components of the bill down by department and program. Some topline comments include:
|
|
THE FUNDING CAN GETS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD Government funding currently expires on December 20 under a continuing resolution (CR) Congress passed in the fall. At that time, the conventional wisdom was that regardless of the election outcome, lawmakers would pass a sweeping package in December to “clear the decks” for the incoming administration. Conventional wisdom did not become reality. In what can only be seen as a political decision, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) instead pushed for an additional CR into the spring. This move again appeases conservative hardliners in the House who want President-elect Donald Trump to influence the Fiscal Year 2025 funding levels. Speaker Johnson was likely also thinking of the Speaker vote in January and his one-vote majority due to vacancies. The new CR is likely to run at least through mid-March, though details have still not been released. What is undeniable is that this sets up a government funding fight as soon as the new Congress is sworn in and with the aforementioned one-vote majority for Republicans. It could distract from the new administration’s agenda in the first 100 days and will likely grind much other legislative action to a halt. |
|
COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP TAKES SHAPE Both chambers of Congress have begun the process of selecting committee leadership for the 119th Congress. In terms of issues of interest to Council supporters, not much is changing. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Jack Reed (D-RI) will still head the Senate Armed Services Committee, though under Sen. Wicker’s leadership there will be an even stronger push for military investment as outlined in his “21st Century Peace Through Strength” report. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Angus King (I-ME) will lead the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and will push for more investment in nuclear weapons. Engagement with Sen. King will be a priority for the Council. Reps. Mike Rogers (R-AL-03) and Adam Smith (D-WA-09) will be in charge of the House Armed Services Committee. Expect much of the same here in a unified Congress. The Council will be pushing Rep. Smith and other committee Democrats to be more outspoken and exert their oversight responsibilities over ballooning, out-of-control military spending. There may also be an opportunity to appeal to certain budget-minded Republicans. Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-CO-05) and Seth Moulton (D-MA-06) remain in charge of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Council-endorsed Sen. Jon Tester’s departure leaves a vacancy for Ranking Member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is next in line, but it is unclear whether he will take the position given other committee roles. Outgoing Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), meanwhile, is set to take the helm of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. A traditional defense hawk, he is likely to push for increased military spending though less is known about his opinion on nuclear weapons specifically. |
|
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA We are on X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Threads and Bluesky. Follow us for the latest national security, legislative, campaign and nuclear weapons news on your favorite platforms. |
|
CONSIDER BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR As election season continues, the Council is also hard at work on its advocacy on Capitol Hill. Have you considered making a monthly donation to support our efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear threats through political action? You can donate as little as $1 a month. Become a monthly supporter today! |
|
