Yesterday, I attended a meeting on the Nuclear Posture Review at the Pentagon. The ground-rules weren’t super clear, so I won’t say anything about the meeting itself.
The Pentagon did, however, use the occasion to release two fact sheets:
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Background
The NPR, Arms Control and Deterrence
The fact that they are dated August 6 is a little odd, but no one working in the building seemed to notice that we were having a meeting about nuclear weapons on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. American ahistoricism at its weirdest.
The fact sheets are significantly more interesting than the Terms of Reference Fact Sheet, which is basically just the Congressional language (compare with the text in the comments) with some helpful elaborations about process.
The most interesting bit is the commitment, in the background fact sheet to a “safe, secure, effective and reliable” nuclear deterrent. In Prague, President Obama omitted reliable.
Mark my words, the Reliable Replacement Warhead will be back.
yousaf | August 7, 2009
I agree the RRW will likely be back (probably as a quid-pro-quo for pushing CTBT through) and, unwittingly perhaps, its proponents do not realize it will not strengthen the deterrent value of our weapons, nor our non-proliferation efforts.
The NNSA’s LEPs of tested devices are doing just fine.
RRW is conceptually irrational, and detrimental to US — and global — security.
Anya L. | August 7, 2009
Jeffrey, on the NPR Background fact sheet… is February 2010 a new date for submission to Congress? Wasn’t it supposed to be December 2009 (at least according to the DoD Terms of Reference fact sheet and the PL 110-181 language)?
Anon | August 7, 2009
“…no one working in the building seemed to notice that we were having a meeting about nuclear weapons on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. American ahistoricism at its weirdest.”
As you stated, it was a meeting on the Nuclear Posture Review at the Pentagon.
Perhaps you got the wrong building?
Anon | August 7, 2009
It’s funny, people, just laugh and move on.
Jeffrey Lewis | August 8, 2009
I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it at all except the damned fact sheets are date-stamped August 6.
anon | August 8, 2009
I started working at the Pentagon on Aug 9, 1994, and I had a serious sense of disconnect as I walked through the entrance from the North Parking lot. No one in the line of lemmings I joined seemed to even realize that it was an historic date in nuclear history, and here I was, starting the job where I would take my turn at shaping the nuclear future.
FSB | August 8, 2009
anon,
is it a hard job cutting-and-pasting from cold war documents? ;) do you have any openings? — I think I could contribute also…
Doug | August 8, 2009
I’d be more comfortable with “The NPR is led by the DOD in conjunction with the Departments of State and Energy” if someone would go be the change at NNSA.
FSB | August 9, 2009
Doug,
State is doing their own QDDR — yes, would have been good if they all pooled their insight. Maybe someone at State could point out to the DoD that China pays for our missile defense folly-to-be and that we buy Russian oil.
anon | August 9, 2009
FSB, I should have mentioned that I lasted around one year at the Pentagon, before I realized I could not take it much longer. In the early 1990s, we weren’t cutting and pasting from old Cold War documents, we were still writing them. I have no idea what they are doing now, as I have intentionally kept my distance.
Stephen Young | August 14, 2009
To Anya:
The Pentagon has formally asked for an extension on the December deadline, and was apparently given one. They have not determined when it will be released – could be late December, early January, with the President’s State of the Union, or closer to the budget release in February, but they are planning for the earlier dates.
Sorry for the belated post.