Council for a Livable World

Today, after over 16 years representing Arizona in the Senate, the No. 2 Republican Senator Jon Kyl has announced his retirement. Sen. Kyl is now the 5th Senator (and 2nd Republican) to announce retirement plans this year. His decision follows that of Sen. Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Hutchison (R-TX), Sen. Lieberman (I-CT), and Sen. Webb (D-VA).

As it is well known by now, the arms-control community has had a contentious relationship with Sen. Kyl, who has served as the face of GOP on nuclear issues. The most notable and recent clash was over New START and Senator Kyl’s desire to block ratification by any means necessary – in spite of the board bipartisan support the treaty received.

Although the Council wishes Senator Kyl luck in his private endeavors, his retirement may signal hope on the horizon for further progress on President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Kyl has long been known as an opponent to ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT )- if and when CTBT is brought to the Senate for ratification, will another Republican Senator step up to lead the opposition? Speculation over who will serve alongside Senator McCain begins now – stay tuned to the Council’s Senate Election Center.

The knock on United States National Missile Defense based in Alaska and California is that it never has been proved to work in real-world situations.  Billions of dollars have been spent on that system, now called “ground-based mid-course,” but there is no sure evidence that the defense would work should North Korea launch nuclear-tipped missiles against us.

Because of the powerful political backing for the program, missile defense has avoided the commonsense “Fly Before You Buy” mantra that prevents billions from being wasted on weapons that may eventually prove ineffective.

According to a recent report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the government auditing agency, the Obama Administration is risking repeating history with its proposed  missile defense systems in Europe.

The Bush Administration hid the true costs of National Missile Defense and avoided close scrutiny by using a policy it labeled “spiral development” – which probably should have stood for spiraling costs.

The Obama Administration’s new label is “phased adaptive approach.” According to the GAO, there are more questions than answers about the new plan.

To review the bidding, on September 17, 2009, President Obama announced a new approach for missile defense in Europe while canceling the Bush-planned system for establishing a third site for National Missile Defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. The revised system, to be deployed in phases of an increasingly capable system, was called “European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). The Administration argued that the new system could be deployed sooner against a nearer term threat and more comprehensively than the previous approach.

The first interceptors would be designed to protect U.S. forces deployed in Europe and our European allies against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles launched by Iran. Eventually, a matured system would help defend against longer-range threats.

The original interceptor deployments would take place on Aegis ships as early as 2011. Phase 2 is scheduled for 2015, including an Aegis defense system on land in Romania. In 2018, there would be more deployment in Poland and then a long-range defense by 2020.

NATO recently endorsed the territorial missile defense system, although it has yet to reach agreement on how to implement the new mission.

However, the missile defense agency is still exempt from rigorous standards.  The GAO notes that: “MDA [Missile Defense Agency] continues to be exempted from DOD’s traditional joint requirements determination, acquisition, and associated oversight processes.”  

In other words, there is no way to judge success if there are no clear requirements and goals except those defined by the agency with the most stake it defining the system as a success.

The GAO continues: “DOD does not have the information it needs to assess whether the EPAA schedule is realistic and achievable, identify potential problems,
or analyze how changes will impact the execution of this effort, and therefore is exposed to increased schedule, performance, and cost risks.”

As with National Missile Defense, the Pentagon may follow the proposed schedule and spend billions with no idea whether the system will really work.  Pentagon does not yet have an overall cost estimate, according to the GAO.  “DOD has not yet developed EPAA life-cycle cost estimates and has indicated that it is unlikely to do so because EPAA is considered a policy designed to maximize flexibility. As a result, DOD does not have a basis from which to assess EPAA’s affordability and cost-effectiveness and is missing a tool with which to monitor implementation progress.”

The GAO adds:  “Without life-cycle cost estimates DOD may not be able to determine whether its revised approach to BMD in Europe is fiscally sustainable and affordable.”

In other words, the United States may be buying more pigs in pokes with no ability to reply on the new system during a crisis.

By rushing forward with many aspects of the program, the GAO notes, the system will may have challenges in getting all its parts working together: “EPAA’s phases are not yet integrated with key acquisition activities and so are exposed to risk of schedule slips, decreased performance, and increased cost”.

Now none of these criticisms should phase [pun intended] Republicans, who have long embraced missile defense whether or not the system has been proved to work.

These Republicans are modern-day Potemkin-ites.  According to history/myths, Russian minister Grigory Potyomkin had hollow facades of villages constructed along the Dnieper River in order to impress Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787.

The modern-day equivalent is the hollow missile defenses in Alaska and California. The new Obama plan is running the same risk as the West Coast system.

The Administration should slow down, set realistic goals, come up with a definitive cost estimate, and test the hell out of the system.

UPDATE: 2/5/11 New START enters into force during an international conference in Munich, Germany. UPDATE: 2/2/11 President Obama signed the New START treaty with Russia on February 2.

On December 22nd, after a long, hard fight, the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The final vote was 71-26 in favor of ratification.

Then the treaty had to go through additional  steps before it entered into force.

Although the Russians waited until after the United States Senate voted, getting this treaty through both houses of their Parliament was just a bit easier, which may have something to do with a somewhat less robust democracy in that country.

On December 24th, the Duma, which is Russia’s lower house, gave its preliminary approval of the treaty 350-58.

In the last week of January, both houses of the Russian Parliament voted for New START. On January 25th, the Duma voted 350-56 in favor, far surpassing the 226 votes needed for it to pass. Then on January 26th, the Federation Council, which is the upper house of the Parliament, gave its final approval of New START, with a unanimous vote of 137-0.

The United States Congress rarely votes unanimously for anything.

The Russians played monkey see, monkey do.  After the Senate added all sorts of provisions to the resolution of ratification to express various concerns – all non-binding on Russia, the Duma added its own conditions, again, not binding on the United Sates.

President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START instruments of ratification just two days later, announcing that New START will enter into force on February 5th during an official ceremony in Munich at which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will exchange their respective documents.

First, however, President Obama has to sign the instruments of ratification; if the documents are to be exchanged this weekend, it is expected that President Obama will add his signature this week. And even before that, the President has to submit a multitude of reports to Congress on aspects of the treaty.

If nothing else, it will keep the printers and the New START wonks busy.

Next in the queue: The initial exchange of data on missiles, launchers, heavy bombers, and warheads subject to the treaty is required 45 days after the treaty enters into force.  The right to conduct on-site inspections begins 60 days after entry into force (i.e. sometime in April).

Republicans, who won the House in 2010, are hoping to take the Senate in 2012. They need a net gain of three or four seats, depending on who is elected President, as Democrats now hold a 53-47 majority. In the last month, the GOP has strengthened its p…