Issue 1347 4 January 2019 // USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

Feature Report

“Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress.” Published by Congressional Research Service; Updated Dec. 7, 2018 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43832.pdf The Trump Administration conducted an extensive review of the INF Treaty during 2017 to assess the potential security implications of Russia’s violation and to determine how the United States would respond going forward. On December 8, 2017—the 30th anniversary of the date when the treaty was signed—the Administration announced that the United States would implement an integrated response that included diplomatic, military, and economic measures. On October 20, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from INF, citing Russia’s noncompliance as a key factor in that decision. Congress is likely to continue to conduct oversight hearings on this issue, and to receive briefings on the status of Russia’s cruise missile program. It may also consider legislation authorizing U.S. military responses and supporting alternative diplomatic approaches. This report will be updated as needed.

 

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 2

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

TABLE OF CONTENTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS  SRNS Finalizes Transition Plans for MOX Facility and Resources, NNSA Says (Aiken Standard) The NNSA, a semiautonomous U.S. Department of Energy agency, oversees the MOX project. The agency canceled MOX in full, effective immediately, on Oct. 10, 2018.  Warren, a Critic of Pentagon Bloat and Nukes, Heads to 2020 Presidential Run (Defense News) Warren has called for no new nuclear weapons, extending the New START Treaty through 2026 and a no- first-use policy for nuclear weapons.

US COUNTER-WMD  Navy Pushes Hypersonic Weapon Plan as Putin Boasts He Already Has Them (Military.com) The Air Force also has put a priority on hypersonics, reflecting the increasing concerns of the Pentagon that Russia and China have taken the lead on a technology that potentially poses the threat of making existing missile defense systems obsolete.  Lockheed Martin Garners $1.8B Missile Contract (Homeland Preparedness News) PAC-3 missiles defend against incoming threats that include tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft …

US ARMS CONTROL  Pompeo Warns Iran against Space Launches (The Hill) Iran last conducted a space launch in July 2017, when Tehran said it successfully launched a satellite. At the time, the State Department called the launch “provocative.”  Trump Says He Expects to Meet Again Soon with ’s Kim (VOA) "We really established a very good relationship," Trump said at a White House Cabinet meeting. "We'll probably have another meeting."

COMMENTARY  Is There a Glimmer of Hope for the INF Treaty? (Brookings) Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in 1987. It resulted in the elimination of some 2,700 U.S. and Soviet missiles.  The Biggest Nuclear Threats of 2018 Will Follow Us into the New Year (Defense One) There was some positive news this year — most importantly the decreased possibility of war in Korea — but, overall it was bleak. Let’s get right to it.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 3

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Aiken Standard (Aiken, S.C.) SRNS Finalizes Transition Plans for MOX Facility and Resources, NNSA Says By Colin Demarest Jan. 2, 2018 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions has completed and submitted plans regarding the transition and turnover of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility as well as the venture's related equipment, materials, property and data, among other things. SRNS, the Savannah River Site management and operations contractor, transmitted the plans to the National Nuclear Security Administration on Dec. 21, according to a senior NNSA spokesperson who issued a lengthy statement on the matter that same day. The NNSA, a semiautonomous U.S. Department of Energy agency, oversees the MOX project. The agency canceled MOX in full, effective immediately, on Oct. 10, 2018. The transition plan – to be reviewed and approved – is part of the MOX closeout process. The mothballing efforts were described as an "ongoing wind down" in a preface to the NNSA statement. MOX, located at the site, was designed to turn surplus weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. The project was more than a decade in the making and was killed after years of political, financial and legal turmoil. Five months before the MOX contract was canceled, the NNSA and U.S. Department of Defense jointly recommended repurposing MOX's bones for an enduring plutonium pit production mission. Plutonium pits are grapefruit-sized nuclear weapon cores. "The government requires termination activities to be completed in the shortest timeframe and at minimal cost in alignment with budget availab… SRNS's plans include a transition timeline with "future use" in mind, according to the NNSA spokesperson. About one year of total MOX termination work is expected, according to an NNSA statement of work, which the Aiken Standard obtained late last year. "The government requires termination activities to be completed in the shortest time frame and at minimal cost in alignment with budget availability," the lengthy, and highly detailed, statement of work reads. The NNSA is working closely with SRNS and MOX Services, the MOX prime contractor, to "ensure an orderly and efficient transition," the spokesperson said. MOX employed about 1,700 people at the time of termination; more than 1,000 have now received layoff notices. Two more rounds of layoff notifications are to be issued by the end of January, according to a person familiar with the matter and project communications obtained by the Aiken Standard. SRNS spokespeople would not comment further on the plans when asked Wednesday. https://www.aikenstandard.com/news/srns-finalizes-transition-plans-for-mox-facility-and- resources-nnsa/article_2317b2e6-0e97-11e9-a471-77769df71c4d.html

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 4

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

Return to top

Defense News (Washington, D.C.) Warren, a Critic of Pentagon Bloat and Nukes, Heads to 2020 Presidential Run By Joe Gould Jan. 1, 2018 WASHINGTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an advocate of reining in America’s military budget and commitments around the globe, on Monday took the first major step toward launching a widely anticipated campaign for the presidency. While Warren’s banking her reputation as a populist fighter can help her navigate a Democratic field that could include nearly two dozen candidates, she has also boosted her global affairs and national security credentials in recent years, in part by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee. “No matter what our differences, most of us want the same thing,” the 69-year-old Massachusetts Democrat said in a video, which highlights her family’s history in Oklahoma and military family ties. “To be able to work hard, play by the same set of rules and take care of the people we love: That’s what I’m fighting for and that’s why today I’m launching an exploratory committee for president.” The announcement comes weeks after Warren made a foreign policy speech at American University calling for a smaller defense budget, a pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a “no first use” nuclear weapons policy. By linking her foreign policy with her left leaning economic views, Warren may win over liberal primary voters, but it’s unclear how this will play with moderate voters concerned with terrorism and actions by Russia and China. “We need to refocus our international economic policies so that they benefit all Americans, not just wealthy elites,” she said in the American University speech. “At the same time, we must refocus our security policies by reining in unsustainable and ill-advised military commitments and adapt our strategies overseas for the new challenges we’ll face in this coming century.” Warren has championed defense spending in her home state, but she used the speech to condemn America’s “bloated defense budget,” saying it’s time to end “the stranglehold of … the so-called Big Five defense contractors” as evidenced by President Donald Trump’s friendliness toward Saudi Arabia and its war in Yemen. “The defense industry will inevitably have a seat at the table — but they shouldn’t get to own the table,” Warren said. “It is time to identify which programs actually benefit American security in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors — then pull out a sharp knife and make some cuts.” Where to cut? Warren has called for no new nuclear weapons, extending the New START Treaty through 2026 and a no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons. When Trump is undermining arms control agreements, she said, the U.S. “should not spend over a trillion dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal." Warren burst onto the national scene a decade ago during the financial crisis with calls for greater consumer protections. She quickly became one of the party’s more prominent liberals, even as she sometimes fought with Obama administration officials over their response to the market turmoil.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 5

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

Now, as a likely presidential contender, she is making an appeal to the party’s base. Her video did not touch on foreign policy or national security, but noted the economic challenges facing people of color and showed images of a women’s march and Warren’s participation at an LGBT event. In an email to supporters, Warren said she’d more formally announce a campaign plan early in 2019. Warren is the most prominent Democrat yet to make a move toward a presidential bid and has long been a favorite target for Trump, particularly amid controversy over her claims of Native American heritage. Warren enters a Democratic field that’s shaping up as the most crowded in decades, with many of her Senate colleagues openly weighing their own campaigns, as well as governors, mayors and other prominent citizens. One of her most significant competitors could be Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who is eyeing another presidential run harnessing the same populist rhetoric. Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has a history of challenging Pentagon spending, particularly the use of overseas contingency operations funding to skirt statutory budget caps. Hosting Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Pentagon Comptroller David Norquist at the panel in March, Sanders questioned the massive compensation packages of top defense contractor CEOs and demanded that the Pentagon end its waste and abuse of taxpayer funds following years of reports of fraud and mismanagement. Warren has the benefit of higher name recognition than many others in the Democratic mix for 2020, thanks to her years as a prominent critic of Wall Street; she also originally conceived of what became the government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She now faces an arduous battle to raise money and capture Democratic primary voters’ attention before Iowa casts its first vote, which is more than a year away. She has an advantage in the $12.5 million left over from her 2018 re-election campaign that she could use for a presidential run. Warren’s campaign is likely to revolve around the same theme she’s woven into speeches and policy proposals in recent years: battling special interests and paying mind to the nexus between racial and economic inequities. “America’s middle class is under attack,” Warren said in the video. “How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie. And they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.” The Associated Press contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/12/31/warren-a-critic-of-pentagon-bloat-and- nukes-heads-to-2020-presidential-run/ Return to top

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 6

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

US COUNTER-WMD

Military.com (San Francisco, Calif.) Navy Pushes Hypersonic Weapon Plan as Putin Boasts He Already Has Them By Richard Sisk Dec. 28, 2018 The Navy has put development of hypersonic weapons on its acquisition wish list even as Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted this week of a successful test and planned deployment in 2019 of "invincible" nuclear-armed versions that can fly at more than 20 times the speed of sound. Under his plan, released Dec. 17, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson listed the Navy's intention to "develop and field an offensive hypersonic weapon by 2025" as a top priority. The Air Force also has put a priority on hypersonics, reflecting the increasing concerns of the Pentagon that Russia and China have taken the lead on a technology that potentially poses the threat of making existing missile defense systems obsolete. In April, the Air Force awarded a contract to develop a prototype hypersonic cruise missile, or the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon. Officials have been candid in acknowledging that the U.S. is likely playing catch-up to Russia and China in the development of hypersonics. In a roundtable discussion with reporters last January, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "We have lost our technical advantage in hypersonics," but "we haven't lost the hypersonics fight." The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working with the Air Force on the joint Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program to perfect hypersonic weaponry. In the boost-glide system, a rocket accelerates the payload to speeds many times the speed of sound. The payload then separates from the rocket and glides unpowered to the target. Putin has boasted that the Russian hypersonics weapon, in addition to its high speeds, which limit the warning time for defenses, can also change directions in flight, thereby thwarting tracking. On Wednesday, Putin oversaw the test launch of the "Avangard" hypersonics weapon from a silo in the Dombarovsky missile base in the southern Ural Mountains. Only the missile launch was shown by Russian state television, but Russian officials claimed that the hypersonic payload successfully hit a target on the Kura shooting range on the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Russia, more than 3,000 miles away. Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov told Russian state television that the test's success showed that Russia now has a hypersonic weapon that "essentially makes missile defenses useless." Putin and other Russian officials increasingly have claimed that new weapons in Russia's arsenal can easily get past U.S. defenses, particularly as the U.S. threatens to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In his State of the Union speech last March, Putin claimed that Russia has a nuclear-propelled underwater drone, nuclear cruise missile and high-powered combat laser. Putin said the "hypersonic" nuclear cruise missile could be launched from a bomber and evade any existing defenses.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 7

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

The hypersonic cruise missile "flies at a speed 20 times the speed of sound," he said, "and it can maneuver thousands of kilometers up and down and right to left. It's like science fiction." The Navy's push for a hypersonic weapon was included in Richardson's "Design 2.0" plan, intended to "guide our behaviors and investments this year and in the years to come." He said that specifics "will be reflected in our annual budget documents." The Design 2.0 plan reflects the concerns of the 2018 National Defense Strategy in stating that "China and Russia are deploying all elements of their national power to achieve their global ambitions. In addition, our competitors have been studying our methods over the past 20 years. In many cases, they are gaining a competitive advantage and exploiting our vulnerabilities." To counter the threat, Richardson listed a number of ASAP capabilities and programs that the Navy needs to acquire or put in operation more quickly. Among those priorities are acquiring the Columbia-class replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic submarines; awarding the Future Frigate contract by 2020; building up the 2nd Fleet to full operational capability in 2019; and awarding contracts by 2025 for a new family of underwater unmanned vehicles. -- Richard Sisk can be reached at [email protected]. https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/12/28/navy-pushes-hypersonic-weapon-plan- putin-boasts-he-already-has-them.html Return to top

Homeland Preparedness News (Washington, D.C.) Lockheed Martin Garners $1.8B Missile Contract By Douglas Clark Dec. 27, 2018 Lockheed Martin has secured a $1.8 billion contract to produce and deliver Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) interceptors. “PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE give our customers unmatched, combat-proven hit-to-kill technology to address growing and evolving threats,” Jay Pitman, vice president of PAC-3 programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said. “PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE are proven, trusted and reliable interceptors that employ hit-to-kill accuracy, lethality and enhanced safety to address dangers around the world.” PAC-3 missiles defend against incoming threats that include tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft – adding America has joined 12 other nations (Germany, Kuwait, Japan, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Romania, Poland, and Sweden) in choosing PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE to provide missile defense capabilities. The PAC-3 MSE uses a two-pulse solid rocket motor that increases altitude and range to defend against evolving threats while bolstering missile defense capabilities. The agreement also includes deliveries for the U.S. Army and Foreign Military Sales of launcher modification kits and associated equipment, per officials.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 8

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

Lockheed Martin officials said the security and aerospace company employs 100,000 people worldwide, principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/31899-lockheed-martin-garners-1-8b-missile-contract/ Return to top

US ARMS CONTROL

The Hill (Washington, D.C.) Pompeo Warns Iran against Space Launches By Rebecca Kheel Jan. 3, 2018 The Trump administration Thursday warned Iran against planned space rocket launches it said incorporate ballistic missile technology. “The United States will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime’s destructive policies place international stability and security at risk,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Thursday. “We advise the regime to reconsider these provocative launches and cease all activities related to ballistic missiles in order to avoid deeper economic and diplomatic isolation.” Iran’s defense ministry has announced plans for three Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) launches in “the coming months,” according to the statement. Iran last conducted a space launch in July 2017, when Tehran said it successfully launched a satellite. At the time, the State Department called the launch “provocative.” Then and now, the United States holds that such launches violate United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. The resolution says that Iran “is called upon” not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles, but does not explicitly ban the activity. The resolution was passed in July 2015 to endorse the Iran nuclear deal. In May, President Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal. In his statement Thursday, Pompeo said a space launch would “once again demonstrate Iran’s defiance” of the resolution because the SLVs “incorporate technology that is virtually identical to that used in ballistic missiles.” Iran denies that its space program is a cover for weapons development, holding that the program is peaceful. The head of its space agency has previously offered to cooperate with NASA and share its data with other countries. Pompeo said Iran has conducted numerous ballistic missile launches since the adoption of the U.N. resolution, including December’s launch of a medium-range missile. “The United States has continuously cautioned that ballistic missile and SLV launches by the Iranian regime have a destabilizing effect on the region and beyond,” he said. “France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many nations from around the world have also expressed deep concern.” https://thehill.com/policy/defense/423674-pompeo-warns-iran-against-space-launches Return to top

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 9

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

VOA (Washington, D.C.) Trump Says He Expects to Meet Again Soon with North Korea’s Kim By VOA News Jan. 2, 2018 U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday he received a "great letter" from Kim Jong Un and will likely meet with the North Korean leader in the near future. "We really established a very good relationship," Trump said at a White House Cabinet meeting. "We'll probably have another meeting." Trump's comments came one day after Kim warned the current goodwill with the U.S. could end if Washington continues to impose sanctions to force his government to denuclearize. In his annual New Year's Day address, Kim said it was his "firm will" that North Korea will no longer produce or test nuclear weapons, or "use or spread" its arsenal. Kim added he was prepared to hold another meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump this year. But he said his country may have to follow another path unless Washington takes "corresponding measures." Kim called on the U.S. and South Korea to end all joint military drills. Kim and Trump signed a vaguely worded agreement during their historic summit in Singapore last June, but further negotiations have stalled in part over Pyongyang's opposition to Washington's call for complete denuclearization prior to granting any concessions. North Korea is also demanding that the U.S. and South Korea first issue a peace declaration to formally end hostilities and replace the armistice that has been in effect since the Korean War ended in 1953. Critics worry a peace declaration could undermine the justification for the U.S. military presence in South Korea. Despite Kim's warning, South Korea's Unification Ministry welcomed his address, saying it reflected Kim's commitment toward complete denuclearization and lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, and the continued improvement of inter-Korean relations. Tuesday's speech was delivered exactly one year after Kim announced his willingness to send a contingent of North Korean athletes to the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea the following month. The speech set off a series of diplomatic breakthroughs, including three summits with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and the meeting with President Trump. https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-says-he-expects-to-meet-again-soon-with-north-korea-s- kim/4726115.html Return to top

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 10

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

COMMENTARY

Brookings (Washington, D.C.) Is There a Glimmer of Hope for the INF Treaty? By Steven Pifer Dec. 27, 2018 On December 21, the United Nations General Assembly voted down a Russian-proposed resolution calling for support for the INF Treaty. That Moscow gambit failed, in large part because Russia is violating the treaty by deploying prohibited missiles. This bit of diplomatic show came one week after Russian officials said they would like to discuss INF Treaty compliance concerns. That could be—not is, but could be—significant. Washington should test whether those suggestions represent just more Kremlin posturing or a serious effort to save the treaty. THE INF TREATY Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in 1987. It resulted in the elimination of some 2,700 U.S. and Soviet missiles. The treaty continues to ban the United States and Russia from having ground-launched missiles of intermediate range (500-5,500 kilometers) as well as from having launchers for such missiles. In 2014, the U.S. government publicly charged that Russia had violated the treaty by developing and testing a ground-launched intermediate-range cruise missile. In early 2017, U.S. officials said the Russian military had begun deploying it. From 2013 to late 2017, Russian officials claimed that they did not know what missile Washington had in mind. After a U.S. official revealed that the Russian designator for the offending missile was 9M729, Russian officials conceded that the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile existed but asserted that its range did not exceed 500 kilometers. On December 4, NATO foreign ministers stated that the development and deployment of the 9M729 constituted a material breach of the INF Treaty. Secretary of State Pompeo the same day said that, if Russia did not return to compliance within 60 days, the United States would suspend its obligations under the treaty, meaning that it would face no treaty bar to testing and deploying its own intermediate-range missile. U.S. suspension of its obligations would relieve Russia of the requirement to observe its obligations. The treaty seemed fixed on a path for demise. SIGNS OF POSSIBLE LIFE? Then, on December 14, Reuters reported that a Russian foreign ministry official had said Moscow envisaged the possibility of mutual inspections to resolve the sides’ compliance concerns. The next day, the Associated Press and TASS said Defense Minister Shoygu had sent Secretary of Defense Mattis a message proposing “open and specific” talks on compliance issues. As with the failed U.N. resolution, these statements could just represent posturing. Indeed, given the lack of serious engagement for nearly five years, it likely is part of Moscow’s effort to ensure that blame for the INF Treaty’s end falls on Washington.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 11

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

There is, however, a small chance that the Russians seek a settlement. U.S. officials should explore this, if for no other reason than that a failure to do so would increase the prospects that Washington bears the responsibility for the agreement’s collapse in the eyes of publics and allies. The big question: Are the Russians willing to exhibit the 9M729 and provide a technical briefing to American experts on why the missile’s range does not exceed 500 kilometers? That invariably would entail questions about the capacity of the missile’s fuel tanks and power of its engine. U.S. experts might also ask why, if the 9M729 can fly no further than 500 kilometers, Russia built the missile when it already deploys the modern 9M728, a ground-launched cruise missile whose range is also less than 500 kilometers. Working out the details for this kind of exhibit and briefing would require some patience and delicacy. It would require agreeing to procedures not specified in the INF Treaty. It would also require steps to ensure that U.S. experts had the opportunity to view a 9M729, not something else. But the State Department, Defense Department, and intelligence community have bright people who could figure out how to make this work. Of course, if the 9M729’s range exceeds 500 kilometers, the treaty requires its elimination. Senior American officials, however, have allowed for the possibility that Russia might satisfy U.S. concerns by modifying the missile so that it could not fly to intermediate ranges. WOULD HAVE TO BE MUTUAL Russian readiness to conduct the exhibit poses one test. A second test is for the American side. While denying that they have violated the INF Treaty, Russian officials charge that the United States has committed three violations. Two of the charges lack any real foundation, and Russians themselves seem to be setting them aside. They continue, however, to press a third charge. The Russians assert that the Mk-41 launcher used by the Aegis Ashore missile defense facility in Romania can hold and launch offensive cruise missiles of intermediate range in addition to the Mk-41’s stated purpose of containing and launching SM-3 missile interceptors. U.S. officials respond that the Mk-41 launcher used in Romania (and soon to be deployed at an Aegis Ashore site in Poland) has not been tested with a ground-launched missile. They argue that it thus is not a prohibited intermediate-range missile launcher. Technically, U.S. officials may be correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the Aegis Ashore facility hosts anything but SM-3 missile interceptors. However, the Mk-41 launcher is standard on U.S. Navy warships. On board warships, the Mk-41 holds a variety of weapons in addition to SM-3 interceptors, including the BGM-109C Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile. The Tomahawk has a range of about 1,500 kilometers. Other than that it is launched from the sea rather than land, it shares many similarities with the BGM-109G ground- launched cruise missiles eliminated under the INF Treaty. Were the Russians instead of the Americans using something like the Mk-41 launcher on land, the U.S. side might well have questions about its compliance with the treaty. Speaking in mid December, a Russian foreign ministry official ruled out a unilateral demonstration of the 9M729 but seemed to leave open the possibility for mutual measures. If Russian officials were prepared to allow an exhibit and provide a technical briefing on the 9M729, U.S. officials should be prepared to demonstrate the Mk-41 launcher in Romania to Russian experts and explain why it cannot hold cruise missiles. If it can do so, there should be ways to address Moscow’s concerns, either by modifying the shore-based Mk-41 or allowing periodic visits by Russian experts to show that the launchers contain SM-3 missile interceptors only.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 12

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

Again, working out the details for such a demonstration would take some time, but the sides have experts with the expertise to do so. AN OPPORTUNITY? Some may object that this kind of proposal equates Russia’s material breach of the INF Treaty with a question of technical compliance on the American side. Perhaps, but U.S. officials—and European officials, since the treaty affects their security—should ask whether offering to address Russian questions about the Aegis Ashore’s Mk-41 launcher is worth the chance to resolve the 9M729 issue and preserve the INF Treaty. At worst, if Russia is merely posturing, U.S. officials will be able to cite their effort and finger Moscow’s lack of seriousness. At best, they could preserve a treaty that has made a substantial contribution to U.S., European, and global security. Washington should take up Moscow’s offer for dialogue. It can do so while allowing the 60-day clock to run, though it might consider allowing more time if technical talks get underway and make progress. The INF Treaty may still have a glimmer of hope, but someone still needs to act to save it. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/12/27/is-there-a-glimmer-of-hope-for- the-inf-treaty/ Return to top

Defense One (Washington, D.C.) The Biggest Nuclear Threats of 2018 Will Follow Us into the New Year By Joe Cirincione Dec. 29, 2018 We whistled past the graveyard this year. Let’s be smarter in 2019. There was some positive news this year — most importantly the decreased possibility of war in Korea — but, overall it was bleak. Let’s get right to it. 1. The New Nuclear Arms Race is the clear winner as the greatest global nuclear threat of 2018. Each of the nine nuclear-armed states is building new weapons and the United States, instead of strengthening the global nuclear safety net, is actively shredding it. In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced five new nuclear weapons he said Russia was building in response to the U.S. decision to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. All are designed to circumvent defenses. Russia has also deployed a small number of ground-based cruise missiles whose range exceed that permitted by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that President Ronald Reagan negotiated. In October, President Donald Trump said he would pull out of this arms elimination pact, despite the objections of NATO allies. Destruction of the INF Treaty is likely a prelude to allowing the New START treaty to die. This pact, negotiated by President , limits long-range strategic forces. If both go, it will be the first time since 1972 that U.S. and Russian nuclear forces have been completely unconstrained. “The untimely death of these two agreements would add fuel to a new arms race and further undermine stability and predictability between Washington and Moscow,” warned former National Security Council senior director Jon Wolfsthal.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 13

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

In mid-December, 26 Democratic senators wrote Trump “out of deep concern that your administration is now abandoning generations of bipartisan U.S. leadership.” They feared that Trump and his administration wanted “to double down on new, unnecessary nuclear weapons while scraping mutually beneficial treaties.” This, they said, “risks the United States sliding into another arms race with Russia and erodes U.S. nonproliferation efforts around the world.” Some countries, perhaps many of them, may see the building of new arsenals and the killing of restraining treaties as a material breach of the U.S. and Russian pledges in the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, up for review in 2020. “Today, pessimism about the future of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is again on the rise,” writes Harvard professor Rebecca Davis Gibbons. More countries, armed with more nuclear weapons would likely encourage greater risk-taking, leading to more conventional conflicts and the great risks of escalation. 2. President Trump remains a unique global nuclear threat. The danger comes from the combination of his nuclear policies, his ability to command the launch of a nuclear weapon at anytime, for any reason, and his intensifying domestic political crises. Any president in this period would face the problems of restraining nuclear-armed adversaries, maintaining a U.S. nuclear deterrent, and rolling back the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran. But Trump’s policies have made several of these problems worse. His would build new, and more usable, nuclear weapons at a price tag of almost $2 trillion while abandoning any effort to restrain global arsenals. This not only fuels an arms race, it breaks the deal with the Senate that “investments in the U.S. nuclear weapons deterrent…must be accompanied by pursuit of continued arms control measures,” as the 26 senators wrote. Serious concerns about Trump’s mental stability have raised serious questions about the wisdom of a system that gives the president sole, unchecked authority to launch America’s nuclear weapons. Trump’s January 2018 tweet warning to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” sparked bipartisan worries. “Spoken like a petulant ten year old,” said Eliot Cohen, political scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “No one person should have the power to decide when the U.S. will be the first to use nuclear weapons,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.. In the new year, multiple investigations will increase the pressure on Trump. “If the Mueller report implicates Trump or his family,” Keith Mestrich of Amalgamated Bank told journalist Bill Press, “who knows what he will do?” During his impeachment crisis, President Richard Nixon brought the nuclear alert level up to DefCon 3, just short of the alert level during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump could do worse. 3. War with Iran is not an immediate nuclear risk, but starting a new, larger war in an already chaotic region would lead quickly to new nuclear programs. Iran would undoubtedly restart and expand its program (now effectively frozen by the 2015 anti-nuclear deal). Saudi Arabia has already pledged to match Iran’s efforts. New nuclear-armed states would appear alongside Israel in the region within the coming decade. This threat ranks ahead of North Korea because unlike Northeast Asia, where there are no U.S. allies who want to go to war, the Middle East features Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman and Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, who may seek to provoke military conflict with Iran. President Trump seems reluctant to start new wars, but John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are orchestrating a “maximum pressure” campaign and staffing up the State and Defense Departments

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 14

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 // with Iran war hawks. Our European allies oppose this campaign, say the administration has failed to build a coalition against Iran, and worry it will lead to military escalation. As domestic difficulties increase for the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America, one or more of them could be tempted to distract critics and rally the public with a war crisis. The Persian Gulf was in 2018 and will remain in 2019 the area of the world most likely to see a new war, with profound nuclear consequences. 4. North Korea holds both promise and peril. After a tumultuous January that raised fears of nuclear war, the Olympic peace effort of South Korean President Moon Jae-in succeeded, lowering tensions and opening up a diplomatic path. Trump’s surprise acceptance in March of North Korean President Kim Jong-un’s meeting offer led to a bizarre Singapore summit. But the joint efforts have dramatically lowered the risk of war on the peninsula and provide the glimmer of a diplomatic resolution. North Korea is the one area of the world where Trump could secure a foreign policy victory. “While it is welcome that we are moving away from a warpath,” 38 North editor Jenny Town concluded, “the jury is still out on whether the Trump administration has the political will and prowess to sustain this process and actually take the negotiation past broad commitments to implementable measures.” If Trump strikes a partial deal at the planned 2019 summit with Kim, he could establish a step-by- step process that could advance security assurances to North Korea and begin suspension and dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure. It will be partial, and uncertain, but it will give Moon what he needs to advance stabilization efforts on the peninsula. Trump could stumble, or be undermined by those in his own administration, like Bolton and Pompeo, who insist on North Korea’s complete disarmament before any U.S. reciprocal steps. Congressional Democrats have demonstrated knee-jerk opposition to Trump’s diplomacy. They could continue to criticize any deal as too weak, hoping to get to the right of him on a national security issue. Or critics could be proven correct, that North Korea has no intention of negotiating even a partial denuclearization deal. Some or all of these obstacles could destroy the diplomatic path in 2019. “At this point, the risks of a war will probably start rising again,” warns Carnegie Endowment expert James Acton. “Once diplomacy has been tried and ‘failed,’ what else is left?” Any spark could set off a military conflict that could quickly go nuclear. 5. South Asia is the sleeper nuclear catastrophe. Tensions between India and Pakistan eased in 2018. The Council on Foreign Relations lowered the risk of conflict to “low” in its annual Preventive Priorities Survey. But the impact of a conflict here remains the highest of any region in the world. A war between the two nations would almost certainly quickly go nuclear, kill tens of millions, trigger global economic chaos, and have catastrophic global consequences. Pakistan and India have the fastest growing nuclear forces in the world. Both have about 150 nuclear weapons, are building more, are building more production plants for plutonium and highly enriched uranium for the cores of weapons, and are deploying “battlefield” systems similar to the weapons NATO and the Warsaw Pact deployed in the 1950s and 1960s. Scientists, using new, more advanced climate models, have updated previous estimates of the “nuclear winter” effect. They now believe that as few as 100 atomic bombs of the type deployed in South Asia, exploded in the dense urban centers of that subcontinent, would put enough soot and particulates in the atmosphere to surround the globe with clouds, lowering global temperatures by

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 15

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

2 to 3 degrees for several years. This would kill a large portion of the world’s food crops. Over one billion people would die in the resulting famine. The resulting migrations and struggles of the survivors would threaten all of human civilization. All of these nuclear risks are serious. Some are world-ending. None are receiving the attention they deserve. In 2018, we whistled past the nuclear graveyard. We have to hope that we will be smarter in 2019. Joe Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund and the author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/12/biggest-nuclear-threats-2018-will-follow-us-new- year/153838/?oref=d-topstory Return to top

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 16

// USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1347 //

ABOUT THE USAF CSDS The USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) was established in 1998 at the direction of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Located at Maxwell AFB, this Center capitalizes on the resident expertise of Air University — while extending its reach far beyond — and influences a wide audience of leaders and policy makers. A memorandum of agreement between the Air Staff’s Director for Nuclear and Counterproliferation (then AF/XON) and Air War College commandant established the initial personnel and responsibilities of the Center. This included integrating counterproliferation awareness into the curriculum and ongoing research at the Air University; establishing an information repository to promote research on counterproliferation and nonproliferation issues; and directing research on the various topics associated with counterproliferation and nonproliferation. In 2008, the Secretary of Defense's Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management recommended "Air Force personnel connected to the nuclear mission be required to take a professional military education (PME) course on national, defense, and Air Force concepts for deterrence and defense." This led to the addition of three teaching positions to the CPC in 2011 to enhance nuclear PME efforts. At the same time, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, in coordination with the AF/A10 and Air Force Global Strike Command, established a series of courses at Kirtland AFB to provide professional continuing education (PCE) through the careers of those Air Force personnel working in or supporting the nuclear enterprise. This mission was transferred to the CPC in 2012, broadening its mandate to providing education and research on not just countering WMD but also nuclear operations issues. In April 2016, the nuclear PCE courses were transferred from the Air War College to the U.S. Air Force Institute for Technology. In February 2014, the Center’s name was changed to the Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) to reflect its broad coverage of unconventional weapons issues, both offensive and defensive, across the six joint operating concepts (deterrence operations, cooperative security, major combat operations, irregular warfare, stability operations, and homeland security). The term “unconventional weapons,” currently defined as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, also includes the improvised use of chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. In May 2018, the name changed again to the Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies (CSDS) in recognition of senior Air Force interest in focusing on this vital national security topic. The Center’s military insignia displays the symbols of nuclear, biological, and chemical hazards. The arrows above the hazards represent the four aspects of counterproliferation — counterforce, active defense, passive defense, and consequence management. The Latin inscription "Armis Bella Venenis Geri" stands for "weapons of war involving poisons."

DISCLAIMER: Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency.

twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 17