ANS-INMM 11-2-12 Weathering the Perfect Storm ......Weathering the Perfect Storm: I li ti f 2012...

Weathering the Perfect Storm:

I li ti f 2012 tImplications of 2012 events on the Nuclear Securityon the Nuclear Security

Enterprise (NSE)ANS Trinity Section and INMM SW Chapter

Joint Dinner MeetingNovember 2, 2012

Santa Fe, New MexicoJack JekowskiJack Jekowski

Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC


TM

http://www.itpnm.com


TM

D ti f th T diti l P tiComplex TransformationComplex Transformation

Departing from the Traditional PerspectiveComplex TransformationComplex Transformation

and the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Security Enterprise

INMM SW Chapter Annual Technical Meeting

The Proposed Restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex…past, present and future?

INMM SW Chapter Annual Technical MeetingMay 21, 2009

Taos, New Mexico

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLC


TM


Complex TransformationCreating the National Security

Enterprise

The Proposed Restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex…past, present and future?

Complex TransformationComplex TransformationThe “Nuclear Spring”

Strategic Implications of Current Events and U.S. Nuclear Policy on the Future of the U.S. Nuclear

Security Enterprise, the Stockpile and Deterrence


Taos, New Mexico



TM


Weapons Complex…past, present and future?

The Road to Complex 2030The Road to Complex 2030A look back, one year later, on the


Taos, New Mexico



TM


proposed restructuring of the Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex


Taos, New Mexico

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLCTM

The Nuclear Weapons The Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Complex Infrastructure Task

F R t (NWCITF)F R t (NWCITF) The Perfect Storm?The Perfect Storm?gy p ,Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

http://www.itpnm.comForce Report (NWCITF)Force Report (NWCITF)Historical Perspectives and

Future Implications


Taos, New Mexico

The Perfect Storm?The Perfect Storm?

2



TM



TM

Evolution of the DOEEvolution of the DOE

3


TM

DOE T d ( ith NNSA)DOE Today (with NNSA)

David B. Sandalow (Acting)

& Counter-Proliferation

4Associate AdministratorFor Infrastructure &

Operations18 Oct 12


TM

C t NNSA O i ti l St tCurrent NNSA Organizational Structure

Doug Fremont was reassigned in early September as a result of the Y-12 Security Incident - Jeff Harrell, NA-15 ADA, took over as acting NA-70, and recently returned to NA-15 BG S d Fi P i i l ADA f

Oversight of Site Offices moved o t of NA 10 in15 as BG Sandra Finan, Principal ADA for

Defense Programs, has been assigned to that acting position.

out of NA-10 in March, 2012.

NNSA Production Office (NPO) set up in June 2012 to oversee combined Y-12/Pantex (and SR Tritium) M&O )contract.

5


TM

Evolution of the NNSAEvolution of the NNSA

6


TM

R t Hi t i l P ti th “NWC”Recent Historical Perspective on the “NWC”

1991• “Complex-21 Study”• “Privatization Planning

Panel Report and Nonnuclear ConsolidationPlan” 1993

1995“Galvin

Commission” Report

1997“120-Day Study”

1999

1998“Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex

Restructuring”2006

• “NNSA Complex 2030”D f S i B d

2003• “Blue Ribbon Panelfor CompetingNational Labs”

• “Management BestPractices for NationalLabs”

2007• GAO report on Complex • AAAS Report• Complex Transformationconcept

• First Industry RFI for newcontract concepts

• LLNL Selected to lead RRW• DoS, DoD and DOE jointstatement on Nuclear Weapons

Reorganization of NNSA

2008• National Security

Enterprise concept• Second IndustryRFI for new contract

2005

1988“Modernization

Report”

Plan 1993• “NWC ReconfigurationPEIS”

• “Non-nuclearReconfiguration EA”

1996“Stockpile

Stewardship and Management

PEIS”

1999• “Chiles CommissionReport”

• PFIAB Report• Stockpile Stewardship 30Day Report

• Foster Panel Reports(through 2003)

2005• Mies Report• NWCITF Report(Overskei TaskForce)

• RNEP fundingkilled

• Defense Science BoardReport

• RRW/LEP CRS report• Pu Pit Lifetime Report• Quadrennial DefenseReview

Labs”• “Task Force on theFuture of SciencePrograms” 2004

“Strengthening NNSA Security Expertise” – 2nd

Chiles Report

2006 2007

statement on Nuclear Weapons• Draft SPEIS for Complex issued

Heated Congressional Oversight Hearings

2008

concepts• Draft SPEIS publichearings

• CongressionalCommission on U.S.Strategic Posture

1994Pinellas Plant Closed Neutron Generator

work moved to Sandia

1990 1995 2000

1994DOE Ohio Field Office

• Fernald Closure Project• Ashtabula Closure Project

2005• Rocky Flats Closed• RRW initiated

2006

1993• Stockpile StewardshipProgram initiated

• New Sandia Contract

1997-1999DOE Abolishment

Acts

9/11

1999Wen Ho Lee

2002• NNSA Re-org• Treaty of Moscow

1989-1991Fall of Soviet Union and end of Cold War

New Design Basis Threat

1996Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Administrator Brooks resigns

Los Alamos Meth security breach

Omnibus Bill RRW not funded

LLNS Selected for LLNL Mgt.

LANS Selected for LANL Mgt.

LANL Contract Competition LLNL Contract Competition

U.C./LANS Fines issued

D’Agostino Sworn in

1979• Three Mile Island

1986Ch b l Ashtabula Closure Project

• Columbus Closure Project• Mound Closure Project • West Valley DemonstrationClosure Project

• New LANL Contract• RRW design exchange

cts

2000• Formation ofNNSA

• Cerro GrandeFire

• Lost Disks atLANL

2001Nuclear Posture

Review

2003Congressional

mandate to compete

National Labs

1992U.S. unilateral moratorium on underground

testing1998

India and Pakistan

Nuclear Tests

Many GAO, IG, and Special Reviews critical of DOE/NNSA management practices, contractor oversight and contractor performance

• Chernobyl• Dingell Hearings

1987K-25 shut down

1988• SRS Reactors shut

down• DNFSB created

1989• Rocky Flats Raid

1991• Tiger Teams

*Derived from: “Change and the Nuclear Weapons Complex”, SAND2005-3505 and other sources“A decline in trust”“Capability vs. Capacity-driven Complex” (as currently configured, major stockpile reductions do not generally translate directly to commensurate cost savings – incremental gains or losses are dwarfed by fixed costs.)”

• Tiger Teams

7


TM

T D d f Whit t f th NSETwo Decades of Whitewater for the NSEA critical period with respect to the future of NNSA,

DOE and the Nuclear Security Enterprise Option to reduceNPR New Triad1979

• Three Mile Island1986

• Chernobyl

riticism

ng

ress

March 1, 2000 – Official formation of NNSA

NNSA Formation and 9/11

1990 ‐GAO and IG identification ofDOE

Minot‐Barksdale and Taiwan Nuclear Incidents

DoD Nuclear Program Reports

Administration goal of a world without nuclear weapons

2010: “The Nuclear Spring”

Continuing Negative Reports:• LANL Safety incidents

• EM moved to Under Sec. for Nuclear Security

• DOE combined withDepartment ofCommerce?

•NNSA stands alone?• Closure for Labs proposed

stockpile to 300 weapons

ICBMs

Bombers SLBMsCommand & Control,

Intelligence & Planning

Non-Nuclear & Nuclear Strike Capabilities

Responsive InfrastructureDefenses

Chernobyl• Dingell Hearings

1987K‐25 shut down

1988• SRS Reactors shut down

• DNFSB created1989

• Rocky Flats Raid1991

• Tiger Teams

Three years of increasing detail and support for the s,

sev

erity

of c

rns

tak

en b

y Co

n

Nuclear Weapons Complex

9/11

Criticism and discontent picks up again, August, 2002

identification of DOE contract management as “High Risk” area – still rated that way in 2013

Galvin, PFIAB, 120‐day report, 90‐day Study, Foster Reports, Chiles Report, Wen Ho Lee

NNSA Contract RFI

Reliable Replacement Warhead Funding Zeroed – JASON Report

April 2009 Acquisition Strategy Report

“Honeymoon” period, NNSA restructuring and public/Congressional distraction from 9/11

The “Dominoes falling” ‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons States:•DPRK• Iran

“Wildcards”:• India•Pakistan• Israeli response to Iran•Global Economic Crisis

ModernizationofNuclear Stockpiles and

•LANL Cyber security• LLNL NIF Budget•DNFSB Risk Mgt•Protective Force Issues•DoD/DOE Nuke security•GAO NSE Cost Concerns

13% increase for NNSA?

Complex 2030 National Security Enterprise

Significant security, environmental, and project management issues within DOE/NNSA and

external pressures from Global War on Terror

“DOE Abolishment Act”H.R. 1649 and S. 896106th Congress, 1999

eque

ncy

of aud

its

nd a

dver

se a

ctio

April 30, 2003, d i i t t

January 30, 2004, Sec. of Energy

announces Schedule June 1 2006LANL

November 7, 2003 H.R. 2754

Congressional mandate to compete

Lab Contracts

Infrastructure Task Force •CRS, I.G., GAO reports ‐2006•NNSA “Complex 2030” plan & PEIS•Defense Science Board – NNWA ‐2006•AAAS Nuclear Weapons Program Review

LLNL Contract Change Sept 30,

2007

Significant security, environmental, and project management issues within DOE result in various task force reviews recommending dramatic changes to the

RRW/LEP concepts

Continuing security and

More LANL Security Problems

Barack Obama

Report

Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the U.S (April 1, 2009)

DoD Quadrennial Defense Review (2010)

Gl b l St ik

Robinson testimony

•Secretary ChuConfirmed•Yucca Mtnabandoned

Modernization of Nuclear Stockpiles and delivery systems:•Russia•China•France•U.K.

Prague Speech

l

•New STARTTreaty signed•Nuclear SecuritySummit•NPT ReviewConference•National SecurityStrategy


• Y‐12/Pantex/SRS Tritium contracts combined• Sandia Contract to be bid in 2013•National Academies Report on Weapons Labs

Late 1990’s Early2000’s

Fre an

9/112001

decision to compete LANL

announces Schedule to compete

contracts of Labs

June 1, 2006 LANL Contract change

2007force reviews recommending dramatic changes to the Nuclear Weapons Complex

Continuing security and management problems at LANL and across DOE/NNSA Amb. Brooks

ResignsLANL RFP

ObamaPresident

•Global StrikeCommandstand up•START ends

New Millennium 2nd Decade

Nuclear Posture Review (2010)

Nuclear Weapons De‐emphasized in National

Security, Nuclear Stockpile numbers released

Osama Bin Laden D dLate 2000’sLate 1990 s Early 2000 s2001

Clinton Administration

2nd DecadeDead

1st Obama AdministrationBush Administration

Late 2000 s

8“A Disturbing Trend Repeating Itself”


TM

NWCITF G hi l SNWCITF Graphical Summary~ 2035

End of current http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NWCITFRept-7-11-05.pdfStockpile’s Pit Life

$155B (through 2030) withnew Complex/Stockpile

“R l ti • RRW

“ In summary, the Task Force found a Complex neither robust, nor agile, nor responsive, with little evidence of a master plan”

(A Graphical Interpretation by J. Jekowski)

“ Th C ld W t k il d th


TM

“Revolutionary Complex

Transformation”Low Risk

+ $10B thru 2015• CNPC• Consolidate SNM• Dismantlement• Office of Transformation

Delay start of CNPC

“…A vision for the agile and responsive nuclear weapons Complex of the future…is embodied by the…proposed

“ The Cold War stockpile and the Complex have served the country well, but neither embodies the characteristics that are important to serve the nation in the future.”

The Complex TodayContinuum of business case options – very sensitive to these assumptions:• Number and extent of LEP ProgramsEffi i i f ti t th CNPC

y

Curtail or eliminate LEP

CNPC assumes new role – close facilities

Credit for reduction in Security

p pConsolidated Nuclear Production Center (CNPC).”

Y-12 National Security Complex

• Efficiencies of operation at the CNPC• Reductions in the cost of Security

High Risk

Very High Risk (not valid)

“Baseline”

Outsource non-nuclear components

Reprogram FIRP

Large RIF at Weapon Labs“The Complex of 2030 should be an integrated, interdependent enterprise”

Security Complex

“From a management perspective, the Task Force determined that there is not a unified interdependent nuclear enterprise Vision or set of mission priorities. Instead the following was found:• DoD does not provide unified and integrated weapon requirementsD D d t t t t DOE’ bilit t d

$175B (through 2030)ith ti i i

“Complex Transformation

in Place”

Status Quo• Reduce effort at design Labs• Close all redundant facilities• Reduce one or more LEP

9September 15, 2005

• DoD does not appear to trust DOE’s ability to respondwith predictability

• Complex rules and regulations focus on process ratherthan mission safety

• No cost/benefit, or risk analysis• Design labs are too independent – they compete andcreate redundant programs and facilities

with continuing issues

$170B (through 2030) with no options


TM

NNSA R C l 2030 (NSE)NNSA Response: Complex 2030 (NSE)

10* Excerpted from “NA-10 All Hands Briefing” by Tom D’Agostino, May 10, 2006


TM

Th N Mill i A D d f T ltThe New Millennium - A Decade of Tumult


TM

December 31 2011Jack Jekowski

[email protected] 280‐2217 LintonBrooks C l 2030

Strategic Posture

Dec. 20, 2005 June 2, 2006 Sept. 30, 2007

Nov. 7, 2003 H.R. 2754

Congressional Mandate to Compete Lab Contracts

Nov. 25, 2002 Creation of Homeland Security

Department

Update to NNSA Act

March 11,2004

Dec. 2002 Creation of

NNSA Service Center

May 11, 2011 Dissolution of the NNSA

Service Center

New START Treaty Signed in Prague,April 8, 2010

George W.

George W. Bush elected President

Linton Brooks Sworn in as

NNSA Administrator

Steven Chu Sworn in as Sec. of Energy

Tom D’Agostino Sworn in as

NNSA Administrator

Overskei NWC Infrastructure Task Force

Report 7‐11‐05

Complex 2030May 10,2006

Post‐9/11 QDR and NPR issued

NPR and QDR 2010

Posture Commission

Report

Complex Transformation

National (Nuclear) Security Enterprise

Yucca

July 2011EM moved to

Under

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

March 1, 2000Formation of NNSA –Gen. John Gordon

sworn in as first Administrator

April 30, 2003 Decision to

compete LANL contract

Dec. 20, 2005 Award LANL Contract to

LANS

June 2, 2006 Start of 7 year base period –LANL contract

Jan. 30, 2004 Schedule to

compete other Lab contracts

Sept. 30, 2007 Award LLNL Contract to

LLNS Barak Obama elected President April 5, 2009

Obama Prague Speech The “Nuclear

Spring”

gBush re‐elected President

Spencer Abraham Sworn in as Sec. of Energy Treaty of

Moscow Singed(SORT) Sam Bodman

Sworn in as Sec. of Energy

Yucca Mountain Budget zeroed

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security

Operation Enduring Freedom

Attack on Afghanistan

President Bush State of the Union

“Axis of Evil”

Libya gives up WMD

A.Q. Khan Network exposed

AfghanistanOctober 7, 2001

Operation Iraqi Freedom

March 20, 2003

July 22, 2004Dec. 6, 2006

11


TM

Th S i l E t f O G ti 9/11The Seminal Event of Our Generation – 9/11

1212


TM

E t di Ti

A i h hi f ki d h d b

Extraordinary Times

• A nexus in the history of mankind has appeared between technologies of the 21st Century and fundamentalist extremism:– Proliferation of destructive technologies that can be unleashed by non-state

d iadversaries– The emergence of religious fervor and fanaticism, enabled by global socio-

economic, political and other factors

“We are now 1.3 billion strong. We have the biggest oil reserve in the world. We have great wealth. We are not as ignorant as the Jahilliah

“It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to

k dgwho embraced Islam. We are familiar with the workings of the world's economy and finances. We control 57 out of the 180 countries in the world. Our votes can make or break international organizations.”

assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter attack.”

1313

The Honorable Data Seri Dr. Mahathir MohamadPrime Minister of MalaysiaThe 10th Session of the Islamic Summit ConferenceOctober 16, 2003


TM

Th N E Whit H F i P liThe New Era – White House Foreign Policy• A new Administration focused on eliminating nuclear weapons:g p

– Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists:• secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years• negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear

weapons material [FMCT]weapons material [FMCT]– Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:

• crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

M T d N l F W ld– Move Toward a Nuclear Free World:• set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it• always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist • stop the development of new nuclear weapons• work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger

alert• seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear

weapons and material• set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles

so that the agreement is global

14http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/ (prior to May, 2009)


TM

Th N E Th P S hThe New Era – The Prague Speech• April 5, 2009 – the morning after the DPRK missile launchp , g

– “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

• Reaffirms the Administration goal of a world without nuclear weapons• Reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U S national security strategy• Reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy• Negotiate a new, verifiable Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia by

the end of the year [when the existing one ends]• Pursuit of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Pursuit of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) See• Pursuit of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/fmct/ for background information

• Strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT - next conference scheduled for 2010]St th i i t ti l i ti [IAEA]• Strengthening international inspections [IAEA]

• New framework for civil nuclear cooperation including an international fuel bank

• Consequences for countries breaking the rulesS• Secure all vulnerable nuclear material aroundthe world within four years - establish theProliferation Security Initiative, and theGlobal Initiative to Combat Nuclear

15

Terrorism as durable international institutions


TM

A d d Whit H F i P liAmended White House Foreign Policy• Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands ofKeeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of

Terrorists– On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an

ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He gyproposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materialsmaterials.

– We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful placeAnd we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.

16

pp y p

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/ (After May, 2009)


TM

A d d Whit H F i P liAmended White House Foreign Policy (cont’d)

• Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of TerroristsKeeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists– President Obama declared his vision for achieving the “peace and

security of a world without nuclear weapons,” laying out a plan for near term practical steps to move in that direction. He proposed measures to:

o reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons by those states that already possess nuclear weapons, starting first with Russia and the U.S.;t t dditi l t i f i i l bo to prevent additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons by strengthening the international non-proliferation regime and by holding accountable those states that have violated their obligations, such as Iran and North Korea;such as Iran and North Korea;

o to prevent nuclear terrorism by securing vulnerable nuclear materials and strengthening international cooperation on nuclear security;

o and, to develop new mechanisms to support the growth of safe and "Responsibility for Our Common Future“ , p pp g

secure nuclear power in ways that reduce the spread of dangerous technologies.

Barak Obamaspeech to the UN

General AssemblySeptember 23, 2009

17http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/ (After May, 2009)


TM

T d Whit H F i P liToday – White House Foreign Policy• Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of TerroristsKeeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists

– President Obama issued an updated Nuclear Posture Review that reduces the role of nuclear weapons in our overall defense posture by declaring that the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear forces is to deter gnuclear attacks against the U.S. and our allies and partners

– In April 2010, the President hosted the Nuclear Security Summit where leaders pledged specific steps to prevent nuclear terrorism and support th P id t’ l t l k d ll l bl l t i l ithe President’s proposal to lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.

– The Administration also oversaw the negotiation and ratification of the New START Treaty which President Obama and President MedvedevNew START Treaty, which President Obama and President Medvedev signed in April 2010 in Prague. By significantly reducing levels of U.S. and Russia deployed strategic weapons, the Treaty represents a commitment by the world’s two largest nuclear powers to the goal of disarmament. In y g p gaddition, the Treaty strengthens the reset in relations between Washington and Moscow that is helping us to address the most urgent proliferation threats we face in Iran and North Korea

18http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/ (After April 2010)


TM

C iti l U t i t Ti li 2010Critical Uncertainty Timeline - 2010National Security Critical Uncertainty Timeline

2010The White HouseOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release

White House Foreign Policy Page: (after May 2009)Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists

• On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He proposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.• We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.

2010Critical Decision

Period: U.S. demonstrates its

commitment to NPT –reveals nuclear

stockpile numbers and dismantled weapons Previously:

For Immediate Release December 04, 2009Joint Statement by the President of the United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation on the Expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)Recognizing our mutual determination to support strategic stability between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, we express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.

NPR Highlights:• Five Key Objectives identified:

- Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism- Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy- Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels- Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and- Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal

• As long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces• The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons...is to deter nuclear attack on the U.S., our allies, and our

partners• The U.S. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are

party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation regime. • No new testing and U.S. will pursue ratification of the CTBT• No new warheads• No new capabilities, however there are three categories of life extension, Refurbish, Reuse and Replace

START Ends December 5, 2009

psince 1991

Alternative Path to the Future

President Obama acceptance

speech – Nobel Peace Prize

State of the UnionJanuary 27, 2010U.S. – E.U. Joint

Declaration and

Previously:• President’s PragueSpeech (April ’09)

• UNSC 1887 (Sept. ’09)• Sec. Clinton’s Speech atUSIP (Oct. ’09)

• Global Strike CommandStand-up (Nov. ’09)

Chilton speech to

AFA Global W f

Possible Discontinuity Events:• Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities• Iranian nuclear test • DPRK and South Korea conflict• Destabilization of Pakistani government

India and Pakistan conflict

President’s FY11 Budget

Feb. 1, 2010$3.8T NNSA budget increased by 13.4%

President’s International

Nuclear Security Summit April 12-

13, 2010Nuclear Posture Review

April 6, 2010

Global Conflict

NPT Review Conference

May 3-28, 2010

JASON Report on LEP

Stay the course

Peace Prize December 10,

2009FMCTat CD

Declaration and Annexes

NAS CTBT Report

Airline Terror Incident

Warfare Symposium

• India and Pakistan conflict

QDR & BMDR

Feb 1, 2010

delayed NAS CTBT ReportDelayed until later in 2010

Lab Directors LEP Letters Released

p ,

The “Nuclear Spring”

NPTConsensus Document

FY11

• Creation of a new International Order• Dramatic reduction of deployed stockpile (START follow-on)• Sub-Crit moratorium following ratification of CTBT• Dramatic changes to Weapons Program at Labs (FY12)• Redirection of Weapons funding to nonproliferation and nuclear security

Nov. Nov.AugustFeb. May

Stay the course

Letter to President by 40 Republican Senators on Section 1251 of 2010 Defense

Appropriations Dec. 15, 2009“the enhanced safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, and maintenance of the nuclear delivery systems are key to enabling

National ElectionsStockpile Certification

New START Re-Negotiation and submission to Senate for Ratification

NTS SWEIS

Scott Brown election

NAS Study on

B61 JASON Study on B61(Nov. 26th)

Wall St. Journal VP Biden

VP Biden NDU speech

New START Treaty Signed in Prague,

April 8, 2010

New NNSA M&O

Contracting Strategy

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile numbers released

May 4, 2010

The Nuclear Spring

U.S. National Security Strategy Released

May 27, 2010

New START Hearings and Vote

Ratified 12-22-10

Watch Listand

Critical Uncertainties

systems are key to enabling further reductions in the nuclear forces for the United States.”

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)

Afghanistan and Iraqi Wars

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

Budget Deficit and Global Economy

FY11 Budget AppropriationsNNSA Restructuring and M&O Contract Rebid/Consolidation Decisions

Space Posture Review (SPR) (delayed) Development of National Center for Nuclear Security (NCNS) at NTS

Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR)

FY11 Congressional Hearings

19


TM

December, 2010Jack Jekowski

[email protected] 280-2217

g y

Iran, DPRK, Israel and Global War on Terror

START, CTBT, NPT, FMCT


TM

N ti l P li St t i Li k“Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government.”

National Policy Strategic Linkages“Until such time as the Administration’s goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is

The QDR analysis strongly suggested that the Department must further rebalance its policy doctrine and capabilities to better support the following p

achieved, nuclear capabilities will be maintained as a core mission for the Department of Defense. We will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter attack on the United States, and on our allies and partners.”

rebalance its policy, doctrine, and capabilities to better support the following six key missions:� Defend the United States and support civil authorities at home;� Succeed in counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations;� Build the security capacity of partner states;� Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments;� Prevent proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; and� Operate effectively in cyberspace

“ pursuing a safe

� Operate effectively in cyberspace.

NPR Policy Framework:� Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;� Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons;� Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced

nuclear force levels;

Joint Tri-Lab Director statement on Nuclear Posture Review:

“We believe that the approach outlined in the NPR, which excludes further nuclear testing and includes the consideration of the full range of life extension

“Our Armed Forces will always be a cornerstone of our security, but they must be complemented Our “With this QTR we bind

…pursuing…a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal at the lowest levels consistent with U.S. and allied interests as we pursue the peace and security of a world free of nuclear

nuclear force levels;� Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S.

allies and partners; and� Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

goptions (refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads and replacement of nuclear components based on previously tested designs), provides the necessary technical they must be complemented. Our

security also depends on diplomats who can act in every corner of the world…”

Four enduring national interests: ”It is possible that our deterrence

“With this QTR, we bind together multiple energy technologies, as well as multiple DOE energy technology programs, in the common purpose of solving our energy challenges. In addition the QTR provides a

of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

p yflexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk.“

g• Security of the U.S., allies and partners• Prosperity both in the U.S. and abroad• Values and respect at home and abroad• International Order that promotes peace,

security and opportunities

The U.S. will: ”U S economic and security interests are

goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

addition, the QTR provides a multi-year framework for our planning. Energy investments are multi-year, multi-decade investments. Given this time horizon, we need to take a longer view.”

20

The U.S. will:• Pursue the goal of a world without Nuclear weapons• Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty• Present a clear choice to Iran and North Korea• Secure vulnerable nuclear weapons and material• Support peaceful nuclear energy• Counter biological threats

U.S. economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc extending form the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia…while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region.”


TM

St t i Li k t DOE d NNSAStrategic Linkages to DOE and NNSA

NNSA Responsibilities:• Reduce nuclear dangers• Manage the nuclear weapons complexg p p• Advance naval nuclear propulsion• Modernize the NNSA infrastructure• Strengthen the science, technology and

engineering base• Drive an integrated and effective

Enterprise

21


TM

E t bli hi th LEstablishing the Legacy• April 5 2009 – President Obama’s PragueApril 5, 2009 President Obama s Prague

speech• President chairs U.N. Security Council –

UNSC 1887UNSC 1887• New START negotiations• Nobel Peace PrizeNobel Peace Prize• NNSA budget plus-up• Quadrennial Defense Review

N l P R i• Nuclear Posture Review• National Security Strategy• New START Treaty signed The “Nuclear Spring”New START Treaty signed• “Section 151” Report• Nuclear Security Summit

NPT R i C f• NPT Review Conference22


TM

C iti l U t i t Ti li 2011Critical Uncertainty Timeline - 2011National Security Critical Uncertainty TimelineNuclear Posture Review Highlights:

• Five Key Objectives identified:- Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism

White House Foreign Policy Page: (after May 2009)Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists

• On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He proposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.• We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.

y y2011

Prague “Master Plan”:

- Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy- Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels- Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and- Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal

• As long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces• The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons...is to deter nuclear attack on the U.S., our allies, and our partners• The U.S. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to theNPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation regime.

• No new testing and U.S. will pursue ratification of the CTBT• No new warheads• No new capabilities, however there are three categories of life extension, Refurbish, Reuse and Replace

National Security Strategy Highlights:• Reaffirms basic tenets of Prague speech• Recognizes the need to “take a longer view”• Recognizes the role of diplomats• Narrows the view of a global war to one with a

specific network: al-Qaida• “International Order” mentioned 27 times in document

“The International Order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times – countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of

nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds.”

Alternative Path to the FuturePreviously:• President’s Prague Speech (April ’09)• UNSC 1887 (Sept. ’09)• Sec. Clinton’s Speech at USIP (Oct. ’09)• Global Strike Command Stand-up(Nov. ’09)

• START ends (Dec. ‘09)• Nobel Peace Prize (Dec. ‘09)• QDR & BMDR (Feb. ‘10)• NPR (Apr. ‘10)• Nuclear Sec. Summit (Apr. ‘10)


India and Pakistan conflict

Global Conflict

Prague Master Plan :“In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”• Reaffirms the Administration goal of a world

without nuclear weapons• Reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S.

national security strategy• Negotiate a new, verifiable Strategic Arms

Reduction Treaty with Russia by the end of the year

• Pursuit of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

• Pursuit of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)

• Strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty• Strengthening international inspections [IAEA]• New framework for civil nuclear cooperation

including an international fuel bank

• Global conflicts• Return to nuclear testing• New START abrogation• Missile Defense deployed in Europe• Nuclear materials and technology proliferation• Cold War II with Russian and China

• New START signed (Apr. ’10)• Stockpile numbers declassified (May ‘10)• NPT Review Conf. (May ‘10)• National Security Strategy (May‘10)• NNSA plus up – 13% + $4.1B(START quid pro quo)

• India and Pakistan conflict• Rise of new nuclear powers• Middle East war• Terrorism on U.S. soil• Fukishima disaster grows

• Creation of a new International Order• Ratification of CTBT• FMTCT and New START follow-on Treaties• Securing nuclear materials• Nuclear Forensics• Redirection of Weapons funding tononproliferation and nuclear security

FY12

including an international fuel bank• Consequences for countries breaking the rules• Secure all vulnerable nuclear material around

the world within four years• Establish the Proliferation Security Initiative,

and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism as durable international institutions

St thGlobal

• Future of Nuclear Power

Nov. Nov.AugustFeb. May

New START Implementation

FY12Stay the course

New START Ratified 12-22-10

State of the Union1/25/11

President’s Budget2/14/11

Planned Projections for Weapons Stockpile and Infrastructure Spending(then-year dollars in billions)

Zero

Exchange of New START

Instruments of Ratification

2/5/11

Watch Listand


Afghanistan and Iraqi Wars



FY12 Budget Appropriations

Global Threat Reduction Nonproliferation and Nuclear Materials Lockdown Iran DPRK Israel and Global War on Terror

NNSA Restructuring and M&O Contract Rebid/Consolidation DecisionsStockpile Certification

e S p e e tat o2/5/11

23


TM

December 31, 2011Jack Jekowski


Global Threat Reduction – Nonproliferation and Nuclear Materials Lockdown - Iran, DPRK, Israel and Global War on Terror

Arms Control Treaties CTBT, FMCT, NPT

Commercial Nuclear Power Expansion and Nuclear Technology sharing


TM

C iti l U t i t Ti li 2012Critical Uncertainty Timeline - 2012National Security Critical Uncertainty TimelineNuclear Posture Review Highlights:

• Five Key Objectives identified:

White House Foreign Policy Page: (amended)Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists– President Obama issued an updated Nuclear Posture Review that reduces the role of nuclear weapons in our overall defense posture by

declaring that the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear forces is to deter nuclear attacks against the U.S. and our allies and partners– In April 2010, the President hosted the Nuclear Security Summit where leaders pledged specific steps to prevent nuclear terrorism and

support the President’s proposal to lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.– The Administration also oversaw the negotiation and ratification of the New START Treaty, which President Obama and President

Medvedev signed in April 2010 in Prague. By significantly reducing levels of U.S. and Russia deployed strategic weapons, the Treaty represents a commitment by the world’s two largest nuclear powers to the goal of disarmament. In addition, the Treaty strengthens the reset in relations between Washington and Moscow that is helping us to address the most urgent proliferation threats we face in Iran and North Korea

National Security Critical Uncertainty Timeline2012

- Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism- Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy- Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels- Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and- Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal

• As long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will sustain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces• The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons...is to deter nuclear attack on the U.S., our allies, and our partners• The U.S. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to theNPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation regime.

• No new testing and U.S. will pursue ratification of the CTBT• No new warheads• No new capabilities, however there are three categories of life extension, Refurbish, Reuse and Replace

National Security Strategy Highlights:• Reaffirms basic tenets of Prague speech• Recognizes the need to “take a longer view”• Recognizes the role of diplomats• Narrows the view of a global war to one with a

specific network: al-Qaida• “International Order” mentioned 27 times in document

“The International Order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times – countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of

nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds.” North Korea

Alternative Path to the FuturePreviously:• President’s Prague Speech (April ’09)• UNSC 1887 (Sept. ’09)• Sec. Clinton’s Speech at USIP (Oct. ’09)• Global Strike Command Stand-up

(Nov. ’09)• START ends (Dec. ‘09)• Nobel Peace Prize (Dec. ‘09)• QDR & BMDR (Feb. ‘10)• NPR (Apr. ‘10)• Nuclear Sec. Summit (Apr. ‘10)


Global Conflict

Prague “Master Plan”:“In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”• Reaffirms the Administration goal of a world

without nuclear weapons• Reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S.

national security strategy• Negotiate a new, verifiable Strategic Arms

Reduction Treaty with Russia by the end of the year

• Pursuit of U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

• Pursuit of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)

• Strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty• Strengthening international inspections [IAEA]• New framework for civil nuclear cooperation

f

• Global conflicts• Return to nuclear testing• New START abrogation• Missile Defense deployed in Europe• Nuclear materials and technology proliferation• Cold War II with Russian and China( p )

• New START signed (Apr. ’10)• Stockpile numbers declassified (May ‘10)• NPT Review Conf. (May ‘10)• National Security Strategy (May‘10)• NNSA plus up – 13% + $4.1B

(START quid pro quo)

• India and Pakistan conflict• Rise of new nuclear powers• Middle East war• Terrorism event on U.S. soil• Fukishima – like events• Climate Change super storms• China Sea Islands conflict

• Creation of a new International Order• Ratification of CTBT• FMTCT and New START follow-on Treaties• Securing nuclear materials• Nuclear Forensics• Redirection of Weapons funding tononproliferation and nuclear security

FY13

including an international fuel bank• Consequences for countries breaking the rules• Secure all vulnerable nuclear material around

the world within four years• Establish the Proliferation Security Initiative,

and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism as durable international institutions

St thGlobal

• Future of Nuclear Power

AugustNov. Nov.Feb. May

New START Implementation

FY13Stay the course

President’s Budget2/14/11

Planned Projections for Weapons Stockpile and Infrastructure Spending(then-year dollars in billions)

Zero

Alternate Path in 2013?• Sequestration?• New Administration?• Balance of Power in Congress?• Restructuring of NNSA?

Watch Listand


Afghanistan and Iraqi



FY12 Budget Appropriations

Global Threat Reduction – Nonproliferation and Nuclear Materials Lockdown - Iran, DPRK, Israel and Global War on Terror

NNSA Restructuring and M&O Contract Rebid/Consolidation Decisions

24


TM

October 31, 2012Jack Jekowski


p

Arms Control Treaties CTBT, FMCT, NPT

Commercial Nuclear Power Expansion and Nuclear Technology sharing


TM

Wh t F t P th A it th NSE?What Future Path Awaits the NSE??

A critical period with respect to the future of NNSA, DOE and the Nuclear Security Enterprise

Administration goal of a world without nuclear weapons

2010: “The Nuclear Spring”• EM moved to Under Sec. for Nuclear Security

Option to reducestockpile to 300 weapons

M

1979• Three Mile Island

1986• Chernobyl

• Dingell Hearings1987

K‐25 shut down1988

• SRS Reactors shut down• DNFSB created

1989• Rocky Flats Raid

?

Minot‐Barksdale and Taiwan Nuclear Incidents

DoD Nuclear Program Reports

2010: The Nuclear Spring

The “Dominoes falling” ‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons States:•DPRK• Iran

“Wildcards”:

Continuing Negative Reports:• LANL Safety incidents• LANL Cyber security• LLNL NIF Budget•DNFSB Risk Mgt•Protective Force Issues•DoD/DOE Nuke security•GAO NSE Cost Concerns

• DOE combined withDepartment ofCommerce?

•NNSA stands alone?• Closure for Labs proposed

Complex 2030 National Security Enterprise

Significant security, environmental, and project management issues within DOE/NNSA and

external pressures from Global War on Terror

rity

of

criticism

en b

y Co

ngre

ss NNS1990 ‐GAO and IG identification of DOE

contract management as “High Risk” area – still rated that way in 2013

Galvin, PFIAB, 120‐day report, 90‐day Study, Foster Reports, Chiles Report, Wen HoLee

1991• Tiger Teams

Cost Overruns• B-61 LEP• CMRR

ex e •CRS, I.G., GAO reports ‐2006

•NNSA “Complex 2030” plan & PEIS•Defense Science Board – NNWA ‐2006•AAAS Nuclear Weapons Program Review

t

NNSA Contract RFI

Reliable Replacement Warhead Funding Zeroed – JASON Report

April 2009 Acquisition Strategy Report

Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the U.S (April 1, 2009)

DoD QuadrennialRobinson •Secretary Chu

• India•Pakistan• Israeli response to Iran•Global Economic Crisis

Modernization of Nuclear Stockpiles and delivery systems:•Russia•China•France•U.K.

•New STARTTreaty signed•Nuclear SecuritySummit•NPTReview


Three years of increasing detail and support for the “DOE Abolishment Act”H.R. 1649 and S. 896106th Congress, 1999

y of

aud

its,

sev

ers

e ac

tion

s ta

k e

Foster Reports, Chiles Report, Wen Ho Lee CMRR• UPF• LANL Security System

Security• Y-12 Incident

• DOE IG reports DOE/IG-0868

2006 LANL t change

LLNL Contract Change Sept 30,

2007

concepts

Amb. Brooks Resigns

urity Problems

Barack Obama

President

DoD Quadrennial Defense Review (2010)

•Global StrikeCommandstand up•START ends

testimony•Secretary ChuConfirmed•Yucca Mtnabandoned Prague

Speech

Nuclear Posture Review (2010)

•NPT ReviewConference•National SecurityStrategy

Nuclear Weapons De‐emphasized in National

Security, Nuclear Stockpile numbers released

• Y‐12/Pantex/SRS Tritium contracts combined• Sandia Contract to be bid in 2013•National Academies Report on Weapons Labs

Freq

uenc

yan

d ad

ve

Significant security, environmental, and project management issues within DOE result in various task force reviews recommending dramatic changes to the

Nuclear Weapons Complex

and DOE/IG-0875Big Science• NIF

Management• Contract consolidation

DOE IG 0874New Millennium

2nd DecadeOsama Bin Laden

Dead

1st Obama Administration

Late 2000’sLate 1990’s

Clinton Administration

• DOE IG-0874• Operational Efficiency and Cost

Savings• Contract and Financial

Assistance Award Management• Cyber Security• Energy Supply

25

• Environmental Cleanup• Human Capital Management• Nuclear Waste Disposal• Safeguards and Security• Stockpile Stewardship


TM

2013 DOE IG R d ti2013 DOE IG Recommendations• Apply the Quadrennial Technology ReviewApply the Quadrennial Technology Review

(QTR) strategic planning concept to the Department's entire science and technology portfolio;portfolio;

• Eliminate duplicative National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) functions;

• Establish a "BRAC style" commission to• Establish a BRAC-style commission to analyze the Department's laboratory and technology complex;R i iti th D t t' i t l• Reprioritize the Department's environmental remediation efforts; and

• Re-evaluate the current structure of the Department's physical security apparatus

26


TM

P l R bi th F t f th C l *

“P ll d ft f b li i th t it

Paul Robinson on the Future of the Complex*

“Personally, and after many years of believing that it was important to keep the nuclear weapons design, development,

and production separate from the Defense Department Iand production separate from the Defense Department, I have now reached the point that I believe it is worth

considering removing the weapons responsibilities from g g p pDOE and placing it as a new agency within the DoD. The presence of a uniformed military could provide a continuity th t h b l ki diff t d i i t ti dthat has been lacking as different administrations came and went. The nation’s nuclear deterrent has only suffered from

these short-term upheavals in what must be a long-termthese short term upheavals in what must be a long term commitment.”

27*Response to questions of House Arms Services Committee, Summer, 2008


TM

G tti P t th P id ti l El tiGetting Past the Presidential Election• From the headlines today:y

“Presidential Candidates' Paths Diverge on Nuclear-Weapon Policies, Arms Control”

• Divergent Paths to the future:– Reducing Nuclear weapons

• Obama – continue further discussions with Russia, possible unilateral reductions b l 1 000 h dbelow 1,000 warheads

• Romney – New START was Obama’s “worst foreign policy mistake yet” (Washington Post commentary)

• Romney – must watch China and Russia modernization initiativesR i– Russia

• Obama – More flexibility after the election to continue negotiations, including missile defense

• Romney – “I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia” P id i l d b O b 22 d– Presidential debate on October 22nd

– Cooperative Threat Reduction• Public indications that Russia will not renew the long-standing agreement

28


TM

G tti P t th P id ti l El tiGetting Past the Presidential Election• Divergent Paths to the future:Divergent Paths to the future:

– CTBT Ratification• Obama – a key long term element in the Prague strategy –

needs votes in Senateneeds votes in Senate• Romney – “…the Senate did the right thing when it soundly

rejected the CTBT treaty…the reasons underlying the rejection remain valid today ” (Romney spokesperson)rejection remain valid today. (Romney spokesperson)

– Preventing a Nuclear-Armed Iran• Similar positions – must not happen

R i ti th ti• Romney – more aggressive sanctions, more sympathetic view of use of force (multiple sources)

– Missile Defense• Obama – willing to negotiate to achieve Prague goals• Romney – less likely to negotiate away (multiple sources)

29


TM

Di t P th t th F tDivergent Paths to the Future

Presidential l i

“Taking the Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty”

Election

3030


TM

Th L d Ah d F t D iThe Landscape Ahead – Future Drivers• Partisan political battlesp

– Presidential/Congressional elections of 2012– Rise of the Tea Party– Obama Administration push to deemphasize nuclear deterrence

Gl b l liti l t if• Global political strife– Continuing saga of the “Arab Spring”– Changes in global leadership

• Global Economic Crisis• Global Economic Crisis– U.S. debt and deficit spending– Euro problems – Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain – Italy next?– Climate Change – growing indicatorsg g g

• International Nuclear and WMD Security Threats– Iran, DPRK, Syria, Middle East, Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups

• Disparate perspectives on Nuclear StockpilesU S d U K d h i i l f l d t t– U.S. and U.K. de-emphasizing role of nuclear deterrent

– Russia, China, and Pakistan continuing to rely on Stockpiles as core national security strategy – upgrading their stockpiles

31


TM

Wh t i th F t P th?What is the Future Path?A newly revised scenario construct: • Labs/Weapons Program move to new entity

ure

• New national security missions funded for Labs• Revitalization of stockpile funding• Direct “WFO” link to DoD• NPR consensus – Replacement option exercisedConsolidation

• The reduction in the global threat allows the Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead

NS

A F

utug

consolidation of the Nuclear Security Enterprise into anew entity that maintains a minimal nuclear deterrentwhile scientific resources are re-directed to climatechange and renewable energy issues.

Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead•

• As new nuclear-capable weapons states emerge, theNPT is abandoned and the U.S. and other G-5 statesrevitalize their stockpiles. The U.S. prepares to withdrawfrom the CTBT to test a new replacement warhead. Anew organizational entity is implemented to support a

GD

OE

/N• NPT abandoned

DPRK tests again

• NPT Regime is strengthened• Iran nuke program shut down• DPRK abandons Nuke program• U.N role grows – source material• CTBT enters into force• Article VI of NPT pursued

P ki k d

new organizational entity is implemented to support a21st Century nuclear arms race and the NationalLaboratories are infused with new war-related funding.

The Global Nuclear Posture • DPRK tests again• Iran tests• NWS test new designs• Arab states move toward nuclear• Pakistan loses control of Nukes

• Pakistan nukes secured

Global ZeroTh d d l b l th t d l t f ti i iti ti N l S it E t i• The reduced global threat delays transformation initiativesand results in significant weapons funding decrease at theLabs as budget pressures redirect needed funding to social,energy and environmental programs. Confidence in thestockpile gradually erodes, forcing concessions in armscontrol negotiations that help the Global Zero movement.

Nuclear Security Enterprise• Global proliferation and an increased terrorist

threat provide impetus to support Complex Transformation plans and Life Extension Programs as Labs struggle to maintain a reliable stockpile in an austere fiscal environment

32• NNSA and DOE remain intact• Status quo for LEPs and Complex• NPR stays ambiguous• Budgets continue to decline

g pstockpile in an austere fiscal environment.

Can the DOE/NNSA and the Laboratories develop robust strategies to prepare for dramatically different worlds?Can the DOE/NNSA and the Laboratories develop robust strategies to prepare for dramatically different worlds?


TM

A L Vi i Ti f G t U t i tA Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty• A column to continue the discussion of “Externalities” and their

impact on the INMM mission– Based on techniques employed by Global Business Network and

Peter Schwartz, customized for use in the National Security environment (see http://www.gbn.com) D i d t h ll th d t thi k b t “ h t i ht b ”– Designed to challenge the reader to think about “what might be”

– Members encouraged to provide topics or guest author– Poses strategic questions to the membership– Columns to date (since Fall of 2010)

F ll 2010 T ki th L Vi– Fall 2010 – Taking the Long View– Winter 2011 – Focusing on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle– Spring 2011 – Preparing for Social Chain Reactions– Summer 2011 – A Strategic Inflection Point? The Nuclear

Crisis in JapanCrisis in Japan– Fall 2011 – The Changing Face of INMM– Winter 2012 – Focusing on the Future of Safeguards and

NonproliferationSpring 2012 Looking Back at a Decade of Tumult– Spring 2012 – Looking Back at a Decade of Tumult

– Summer 2012 – Sustaining the Institute– Fall 2012 – INMM’s International Role

3333“What should the INMM’s role be in a world defined by the new ‘international order’ and how should we be preparing today to fill that role in the future?”


TM

Di t P th t th F tDivergent Paths to the FuturePath Toward

A di i i

World Peace?“Taking the Long View in a Time of Great Uncertainty”

discontinuity event?

Possible Discontinuity Events:• Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities

Status Quo?

Today

• Iranian nuclear test • DPRK and South Korea conflict• Destabilization of Pakistani government• India/Pakistan conflict• Rise of new nuclear powers

3434

Path Toward Global Conflict?

Rise of new nuclear powers• Middle East war• Terrorism on U.S. soil• Non-state use of WMD• Fukishima disaster grows or similar events


TM

P i f th S d D dPreparing for the Second DecadeY-12, CMRR, UPF, NIF, B-61 LEP

Arab Spring

The Perfect Storm?The Perfect Storm?Iran and DPRK

Proliferation of Nuclear Technology Middle East War

35

Budget Deficit

Climate ChangePakistan


TM

Weathering the Perfect Storm:Weathering the Perfect Storm:Implications of 2012 events on the Nuclear

Security Enterprise (NSE)

Past, Present and…Future?Future?

These are historic times…we need to use all of our collective knowledge 2012 use all of our collective knowledge,

wisdom, and imagination, to ensure that there is no question mark at the

d f h d i l

"It is five minutes to midnight. Two yearsago, it appeared that world leaders mightaddress the truly global threats that we face.…Despite the promise of a new spirit ofinternational cooperation and reductions in

2012

end of the road…our national security hangs in the balance

international cooperation, and reductions intensions between the United States andRussia, the Science and Security Boardbelieves that the path toward a world free ofnuclear weapons is not at all clear, andleadership is failing."

36For electronic copies of this presentation email Jack Jekowski: [email protected]; visit ITP’s website: (http://www.itpnm.com) and click under “What’s New”; or visit the ANS Trinity Web Site: http://local.ans.org/trinity/

ANS-INMM 11-2-12 Weathering the Perfect Storm ......Weathering the Perfect Storm: I li ti f 2012...

Documents

Transcript of ANS-INMM 11-2-12 Weathering the Perfect Storm ......Weathering the Perfect Storm: I li ti f 2012...