Threat Reduction

Inside the Pentagon reported this morning that a new U.S.-Russia agreement on combating the spread of nuclear weapons has led the Defense Department to ask congressional authorizers to change how funding is divided among different Cooperative Threat Reduction initiatives:

House and Senate authorization panels have agreed to shift funds from programs in the former Soviet Union to initiatives in the Middle East and Africa, according to bills filed this month. Both the House and Senate Armed Services committees have recommended the entire requested amount of $528.5 million, but some funding differences for CTR subprograms will have to be worked out in conference.

Following the April submission of the fiscal year 2014 defense budget request, the Pentagon asked lawmakers to greatly reduce funds for the global nuclear security subprogram and bump up proliferation prevention funds as an umbrella agreement with Russia was set to expire in mid-June, according to the House's version of the bill, which the full chamber approved earlier this month. Earlier this month, Russia and the United States signed a new CTR agreement; its main sticking points had been expressed in advance.

The Defense Department also sought a small dip in the requested funds for the cooperative biological engagement, strategic offensive arms elimination and chemical weapons destruction subprograms, the House report states.

Defense officials initially sought $306.3 million for cooperative biological engagement but later reduced that amount to $293.1 million, the report states.

That agreement doesn't sit well with House lawmakers, 43 of whom -- even though they have no say in ratifying international treaties -- are calling on President Obama to reconsider any unilateral reduction to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and submit any proposed international agreement for such reductions to the Senate for review.

"We are deeply concerned by your recent announcement of your intent to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as one-third," the lawmakers write in a letter sent today. "Although we understand your desire for a world without nuclear weapons, we believe that your proposal woudl make that goal less attainable and jeopardize America's security." They add:

We face a world today in which nuclear threats to the United States are increasing and our conventional military capabilities face dramatic reductions. In this context, our nuclear deterrent is becoming more important. A robust, reliable nuclear force consisting of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched  ballistic missiles places our rivals on notice that there is no advantage to be gained in seeking to match U.S. nuclear forces and reassures our allies who rely on our nuclear "umbrella." In doing so, this capability continues to promote peace and make the world safer.