American Security Quarterly - Jan 2013

7/30/2019 American Security Quarterly - Jan 2013

1/52

quart

erly

www.AmericanSecurityProject.org 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 710W Washington, DC

American Security QuarterlyVision, Strategy, Dialogue

January 2013

V.2 Issue 1

August Cole: LOSING OUR COMPEIIVENESSJEOPARDIZES NAIONAL SECURIY

Dirk Jameson:We can cut some spending on nuclearstrategyDan Grant: Myanmars Money, Obamas Visit, and China

Ashley Boyle: International law takes on cyber: signicantchallenges ahead

Matt Freear: What the Somali Media Needs to Survive

Cheney and Cunningham: Strategic bases vulnerable to climate change

Foley: Climate Change: Te Missing Link in ackling the Mali Crisis

Wang:A Breakdown o EIAs new Annual Energy Outlook Report

andTe reality o climate change can no longer be ignoredLieutenant General Daniel Christman, USA (Ret.),Brigadier General Steve Anderson, USA (Ret.), andBrigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.)


2/52

2

AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT

INRODUCIONIts easy to become distracted by the sensationalism associated with the scalcli, Benghazi, cabinet nominations, and gun control. While ASP agreesthat all o these are important issues, it is still wise to reocus our energy onlong term solutions to perennial problems that eect our national security -like American competitiveness. August Cole, an adjunct ellow or ASP, haspenned an excellent piece on how America is slipping and where we need togo.

Perhaps related to the sequestration issue is nuclear security. We continue tospend billions - yes billions - on weapons centered on an outdated nuclearstrategy. LtGen Dirk Jameson USAF (Ret), who REALLY knows the nuclearbusiness rom a hands on perspective, oers some innovative thoughts onhow we can save a bundle yet make ourselves more secure.

And by now we are all too amiliar with Benghazi and what occurred there.But ASP Fellow Matthew Wallin shows us that i we would just invest moreinto our diplomatic corps, we would reap tremendous benets.

Tis is just a taste o what ASP has been up to this last quarter. We are truly

non-parisan and have NO agenda other then making our nation more secure.But the issues we take on we will pursue with a passion, hoping to educateeveryone on what are critical topics that our government needs to support.Given the divisive arguments o this past quarter, we hope to breathe somehope that bi-partisan consensus can be reached to make us more secure.

Visit our website to see all o what we do - I think youll like it!

BGen Stephen A. Cheney USMC (Ret.)

CEO American Security Project


3/52

3

CONTENTS

AMERICAN COMPEIIVENESS Page

Losing our competitiveness jeopardizes national security 5

August Cole

New Mexican administration seeks cooperation rom Washington 7William Chodkowski

Why Nuclear Fusion is Worthy o Further Research and Government Investment 8Andrew Holland

Sequestration or not - change is coming 9August Cole

Te race globally or competitiveness continues 10August Cole

R&D Funding Critical to American Competitiveness 11Galen Petruso

New Fusion Report: Shit Focus to Producing Practical Energy 12Nick Cunningham

NUCLEAR SECURIY

We can cut some spending on nuclear strategy 13LtGen Dirk Jameson USAF (Ret.)

What Pyongyangs est Means And Where to Go From Here 14Derek Bolton

Experts Support Resizing the Nuclear Arsenal 15Mitchell Freddura

Nuclear Programs Force Deense Budget radeos 16Mary Kaszynski

Wanted: ransparency in the Nuclear Budget 17Mary Kaszynski


4/52

4


NAIONAL SECURIY SRAEGY

Supporting the Foreign Service Supports our Military 18Mathew Wallin

America: Surpassed by the United Kingdom 19Mathew Wallin

Public Diplomacy Ater the Election 20Mathew Wallin

Indias Pursuit o Hydrocarbons: Fueled by More Tan Energy Concerns 21Colin Geraghty

International law takes on cyber: signicant challenges ahead 23Ashley Boyle

ASYMMERIC OPERAIONS

Drone Knowns and Unknowns 25Joshua Foust

Myanmars Money, Obamas Visit, and China 26Dan Grant

What the Somali Media Needs to Survive 28Matt Freear

Te Business o Treat Prolieration: Rethinking the Approach 29Ashley Boyle

Asymmetric Maritime Treats to the Strait o Hormuz 31Elizabeth Deal

Nacrotracking in Aghanistan and Mexico: Parallel Lessons? 32William Chodkowski

CLIMAE AND ENERGY SECURIY

Strategic bases vulnerable to climate change 33Stephen A Cheney and Nick Cunningham

Small modular reactors provide path orward or nuclear power 35Nick Cunningham


5/52

5

Te reality o climate change can no longer be ignored 36Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, USA (Ret.),Brigadier General Steve Anderson, USA (Ret.) andBrigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.)

U.S. Must Adapt to Climate Change 37

Nick Cunningham

U.S. to Begin Exporting Natural Gas? 38Martin Bee

A Breakdown o EIAs new Annual Energy Outlook Report 40Yong Wang

With militarys push, biouels can grow 41Andrew Holland

Resources in the South China Sea 42Xander Vagg

Complexity: World Food Prices, Fuel, Ethanol, and Confict 43Andrew Holland

Climate Change: Te Missing Link in ackling the Mali Crisis 45Catherine Foley

Sandy & Homeland Security: Infection Point or Arming the Status Quo? 46William Chodkowski

Te IEAs World Energy Outlook and American Energy Independence 47Xander Vagg

Further Reading 50


6/52

6


AMERICANCOMPEIIVENESS

Losing our competitiveness jeopardizesnational security

August Cole

Te Hill

29 Nov 2012

Americas competitive position is slipping, and its timeto acknowledge this decline as a national security issue.

Current policies and objectives in the public and

private sector, taken together, dangerously undercutAmericas current and uture global position throughinstability, ineciency and risk. Americas politicaland business leaders must understand that improv-ing our nations competitiveness is an urgent priority

with much higher stakes than is acknowledged today.

For example, the toxic political battle over thecountrys scal uture threatens everything romU.S. sovereign credit ratings to geopoliticaldynamics in the Pacic, where China and Japan

together hold more than $2 trillion in U.S. debt.

Tis crisis oers an opportunity to redene nationalsecurity in a way that refects Americas true strengthand power -- and its vulnerabilities. Te U.S. militaryis unmatched, but ocusing on that might as the bestmeasure o American power in the 21st Century is a

strategic mistake. While the U.S. has been at war, natiosuch as China, India, Russia and Brazil have emergeas economic and geopolitical players with clout thUnited States is still coming to grips with. With thU.S. out o Iraq and exiting Aghanistan, policymakehave been given a unique chance to construct

vision or the uture that is not tied to the politicaeconomic and social dynamics o the past decad

Americas competitive prole is a good place start. We need to look at its interrelated elemenat the same time, rather than careening roone hot-button issue to another. Tese elemeninclude business climate, inrastructure, nationdebt, labor market and immigration, deenindustrial base, as well as education and healthcar

Tere are more signs that this is an increasingly urgeissue.In less than ve years, the U.S. has allen in one the main benchmarks o national competitivenesthe World Economic Forums 2012-2013 GlobCompetitiveness Report. Te report currently ranthe U.S. 7th overall, just behind Germany, while 2011, the U.S. ranked 5th. Te last time the U.held the title as the top ranked nation was 200

Meanwhile, debt-crisis politics cause credit ratinagencies to downgrade the sovereign debt o thU.S. while high corporate tax rates with extensivloopholes create an unpredictable business climat

Te American Society o Civil Engineers gave thU.S. a D rating on its inrastructure report caand ound investment in inrastructure underundeby more than $1 trillion over a ve-year perio

While China and Japan remain taciturn abothe scal racas in Washington with eacholding more than $1 trillion in U.S. debother nations are becoming increasingly vocaincluding Europes biggest economy: German
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/cole-losing-our-competitiveness-jeopardizes-national-security/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/cole-losing-our-competitiveness-jeopardizes-national-security/


7/52

7

Te U.S. immigration system is out o phase with aglobalized market or the worlds brightest workers andcan do much more to retain oreign students who studyscience, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Te deense industrial bases small rms oten

provide crucial technologies and systems yetare becoming increasingly vulnerable to cashcrunches and tight lending, while the largestcontractors and the Pentagon endlessly wrestle toget major weapons program costs under control.

At the household level, healthcare costs riseyear ater year and the risk o medical-relatednancial trouble is ever present. uition costsor higher education have surged and only 75%o high school students graduate in our years.

Each o these trouble spots deserves attention giventheir acuity, yet the only way to make meaningulprogress is to address them as part o a consensus thataims to achieve something much bigger: improving

Americas competitive position in the world.

In Washington, bipartisan political action israught with risk. Novembers election is still inthe rear-view mirror and is a reminder o the

stakes lawmakers are playing or when they decideto take action, or stand aside. Beyond politics,the public sector in general needs a sense ourgency so that process does not impede progress.

As or the private sector, one o its most importantsteps will be a sel-examination o what the roleo business in 21st Century America should be.By extension, one measure will be how a businessleaders actions might help or hurt Americas

competitive position, or national security itsel.

Tis will require balancing some o todays toughestand most contentious issues in a way that is aithulto the needs o shareholders and business owners

while also bringing empathy and understandingto the needs o employees and their communities.

However, none o this will be possible withoutacknowledging the seriousness o the current situationand the clear paths available to improve Americascompetitiveness, and by extension, our national security.

New Mexican administration seekscooperation rom Washington

William Chodkowski

Flashpoint Blog

28 Nov 2012At ASPs event commemorating the release oits American Competitiveness Report this morning,speakers proessed the need or policymakers to inter-pret national security holistically to reach beyondtraditional state security to long-term issues like eco-nomic vitality. Americas traditional insulation stemsrom its geographic position, surrounded by two vastoceans and fanked by riendly neighbors. But global-ization erodes those historical barriers and lends evengreater weight to eorts to oster economic coopera-tion and investment.

Arecent Wall Street Journal article outlines the statedcommitment o the incoming Mexican administra-tion o Enrique Pea Nieto to engage the second-termObama administration in improving the bilateral re-lationship between Mexico and the United States ormutual economic benet. Mr. Nietos InstitutionalRevolutionary Party (PRI) was elected on a platormo encouraging economic growth through reorm de-signed to encourage oreign investment.

Whereas the previous Calderon administrations

legacy was marred by the instability caused by drugtracking organizations (DOs) responsible or ap-proximately 65,000 deaths over the past six years,the PRI hopes to address cartel-inspired corruptionand violence through economic improvement. Tispresents an opportunity or Washington to indirectly
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/new-mexican-administration-seeks-cooperation-from-washington/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/american-competitiveness-report-an-issue-of-national-security-2/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323830404578145530294622900.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323830404578145530294622900.htmlhttp://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/american-competitiveness-report-an-issue-of-national-security-2/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/new-mexican-administration-seeks-cooperation-from-washington/


8/52

8


address controversial issues immigration policy anddrug policy through cooperation designed to bolstereconomic growth, trade, and investment.

Te U.S. ability to control the supply and demando narcotics fowing into the country rom Mexicothrough enorcement measures is highly limited, es-pecially in an eort to uphold a conjugal relation-ship with the sovereign Mexican state. Nonetheless,strengthened public and private sector ties to theMexican economy can help build the societal insti-tutions which will delegitimize cartel control: rule-o-law, education, and productive economic activ-ity. Te political ramework exists in Mexicos stableederal democracy, and the economic ramework or

improvement through trade and investment was es-tablished with NAFA in the 1990s.

While spillover o cartel violence across Americasborders has been limited thus ar, the PRIs pledge to

work together with their counterparts in Washingtonshould be pursued in the spirit o holistic security. Astable and prosperous southern neighbor in Mexicois preerable to American policymakers or a rangeo reasons. Te convergence o two new administra-tions provides an opportunity or bilateral coopera-tion that should not be squandered.

Why Nuclear Fusion is Worthy o FurthResearch and Government Investment

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

22 Oct 2012

Last week, I spent two days at the InternationAtomic Energy Agencys 2012 Fusion Energy Coerence in San Diego. Te conerence, sponsored bthe U.S. Department o Energys Oce o Scienand General Atomics, brought together about 100usion scientists rom around the world to meet andiscuss the state o the art in scientic research develop usion energy.

Fusion is a technology that holds great promise meeting our energy needs. By using together two hdrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium enormoamounts o energy can be produced, as predicted bEinsteins equation, E=MC2. Te heat rom this reation creates steam to spin a generator just like another electricity power plant. Since deuterium comrom ocean water, and tritium can be bred rom litium, usion holds the promise o providing a nearinexhaustible supply o energy, with no pollutants, ngreenhouse gases, and no radioactive waste. Tere no threat o a nuclear meltdown like there is with thnuclear ssion reactors o today.

Tis is the same process that powers the sun, and could completely revolutionize the energy syste

when commercialized. However, the problem is thit is endishly hard to initiate a reaction anywheother than under the tremendous gravitational oro a star. Scientists have not been able to conne th

heated plasma on earth in such a way that it createsreaction that generates more power than it put in term called ignition or energy gain. For more dtail, see ASPs mini-site on usion.

Most o the presentations at the conerence weabove the scientic knowledge o the average perso
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.htmlhttp://www.americasquarterly.org/node/4259http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/4259http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/why-nuclear-fusion-is-worthy-of-further-research-and-government-investment/http://www.fec2012.com/http://www.fec2012.com/http://americansecurityproject.org/issues/climate-energy-and-security/energy/fusion2020/http://americansecurityproject.org/issues/climate-energy-and-security/energy/fusion2020/http://americansecurityproject.org/issues/climate-energy-and-security/energy/fusion2020/http://www.fec2012.com/http://www.fec2012.com/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/why-nuclear-fusion-is-worthy-of-further-research-and-government-investment/http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/4259http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/4259http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.html


9/52

9

(they were certainly well beyond my understanding!).However, I am convinced by my experience there thatthe scientists believe they are now on a pathway toenergy gain.

While in San Diego, I took a tour o General AtomicsDIII-D usion machine, one o only 3 tokamaks (thedonut-shaped reactor designed to conne plasma orthe purposes o generating usion) in the country. TeDIII-D has revolutionized the science o containingand controlling the plasma in which a usion reactiontakes place. When operational, the DIII-D res anexperimental 5 second shot o plasma through themachine. It was down or maintenance while I wasthere.

Critics o usion oten say that it is the energy o theuture and always will be. However, I would pointout that the DIII-D was originally built in the 1960s,and was last substantially upgraded in 1986. Similartrajectories can be noted at the other major Americanresearch acilities, like MI and Princeton. Trough-out the 90s, and into today, there have been plans ornew machines that could lead to breakthroughs, butpersistent budget cuts have prevented new advances.

Even so, scientists at the conerence seemed convincedthat they are on a pathway to achieving ignition withenergy gain over the next decade or two. Tese pre-dictions are dependent upon the level o governmentunding not an easy or guaranteed thing at this time and some scientic breakthroughs. Te IER proj-ect in Cadarache, France promises to achieve energygain when it is operational by the end o this decade.

Fusion is not tomorrows energy source, and I am notadvocating that we put all our energy research and de-velopment eggs in this one basket, but in a world witha population growing towards 9 billion people, witheconomic growth and prosperity directly linked withthe use o nite ossil uel resources, we must plan oralternative energy sources. Renewable resources canmeet some o those needs, but they will become in-

creasingly dicult to mesh with our modern energygrid as their levels get higher.

Te presentations I saw last week convinced me thatthere are many hurdles beore the ultimate goal, butthat the scientists are on their way. With the qual-ity o the minds working on it, and with the clearbenet that limitless power would bring, this seemslike a Hail-Mary pass that we should be investingin. Someday, we will realize usion as a limitless, sae,clean energy. I America does not invest in it, othernations will, and well be orced to buy it rom them.

I will have uture posts on the state o the budgetor American usion, and progress towards usion insmaller, privately-unded companies. I should alsodirect readers to my most recent article up on AOL

Energy that discusses Lawrence Livermores NationalIgnition Facility, and why the New York imeseditorial page was wrong to attack it.

Sequestration or not - change is coming

August Cole

Flashpoint Blog

30 Sept 2012

Te battle over deense spending continues to inten-siy, with the latest skirmish at the heart o one o thedeense industrys main pressure points.

Last week, the Obama administration eectively toldgovernment contractors that i they issued mass lay-

o warning notices ahead o the November election,as many threatened earlier this year, the companieswould potentially lose out on recouping sequestra-tion-related costs associated with cutting employeesor shuttering acilities.

Hundreds o thousands o deense contractor workers
http://energy.aol.com/2012/10/17/why-the-new-york-times-is-wrong-on-the-national-ignition-facilit/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/sequestration-or-not-change-is-coming/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/sequestration-or-not-change-is-coming/http://energy.aol.com/2012/10/17/why-the-new-york-times-is-wrong-on-the-national-ignition-facilit/


10/52

10


could be warned that their positions may be lost -- anotication coming right beore they vote.

Tis move underscores two urgent elements key tothe near-term uture, and prosperity, o the industry.

Te rst: escalating stakes in the political ght over

deense jobs. Whoever wins the Oval Oce and con-trols Congress, will help determine whether the nextphase in the deense industrys trajectory is cyclicaldecline or something bigger and structural.

Politics more than policy may be the ultimate actor,and that is a long-term risk. Yet that is why majorcontractors are willing conjure the spectre o hun-dreds o thousands o layos i sequestration takes e-ect, an outcome that i it happens would be certain

to be pinned on President Obama.Te second element is tied to the industrys businessmodel itsel. I sequestration occurs, who shouldersthe expense o its impact? axpayers? Or shareholders?

Te Obama administrations subtle threat in lastweeks OMB memo speaks clearly to this as it appearsto shut down an avenue or contractors to shit thecost o sequestrations impact onto taxpayers. Tat isa sure way to catch the attention o deense CEOs

who are ever mindul o their shareholder responsi-bility. Te upside o the past decade showed how ardeense stocks, and executives stars, could rise.

Te next 10 years, sequestration or not, will be awhole new test or corporate leaders, taxpayers andpoliticians alike.

Te race globally or competitiveness

continues

August Cole

Flashpoint Blog

7 Sept 2012Tis summer is one o winners and losers.

Yet ater the Olympic anare in London, another racontinues. Ater the headline-grabbing medalists rturn home and plot a return to glory, a larger stoo competition continues to unold out o sight policymakers and executives around the world digrapple with the issue o national economic competiveness during the worst economic crisis in a lietim

How nations handle this adversity matters more thaever. Te latest judgment on the competitive positioo the United States comes rom the World EconomForum.

Te groups 2012-2013 annual report ranked the U.7th, slipping urther rom the podium. Last year, th

WEF ranked the U.S. 5th out o 144 countries; tU.S. was 4th in the 2010-2011 report.

Out o the 144 countries ranked, the US ared poorin the business costs o terrorism (ranking 124thgovernment budget balance as a percentage o GD(140th) and general government debt as a percentao GDP (136th).

Te study also looked at the most problematic ators or doing business by surveying executives. Tmost commonly mentioned actor: inecient goverment bureaucracy. Te next two were tax rates and tregulations.

As the WEF report, and others show, the race globaor competitiveness continues. Getting the U.S. baonto the podium remains more important than eve

You can read the report here: Te Global Competiveness Report 2012-2013
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-race-globally-for-competitiveness-continues/http://www.scribd.com/doc/104988302/The-Global-Competitiveness-Report-2012-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/104988302/The-Global-Competitiveness-Report-2012-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/104988302/The-Global-Competitiveness-Report-2012-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/104988302/The-Global-Competitiveness-Report-2012-2013http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-race-globally-for-competitiveness-continues/


11/52

11

R&D Funding Critical to AmericanCompetitiveness

Galen Petruso

Flashpoint Blog

17 Dec 2012

In an era o a changing climate and high energyprices, U.S. energy innovation is critical or utureprosperity or America. Federal support or researchand development (R&D) or a range o cutting edgetechnologies has long provided the underpinningsor economic growth. A look back at a history ogovernment support, particularly rom programsled by the Departments o Energy and Deense,

demonstrates time and time again that ederalR&D support can lead to successul technologicalbreakthroughs.

Looking orward, with rising powers around theworld, it is more important than ever to adequatelyund a variety o science and technology elds tocreate the innovations o tomorrow.

However, science unding is under threat romlooming budget cuts, and critical R&D programs

may become casualties in decit reduction eorts.

Recently, the group Securing Americas FutureEnergy (SAFE), a group o private sector andmilitary leaders, hosted a roundtable discussingits new report on National Strategy or EnergySecurity.

During the event, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-N) argued that Congress should double theDepartment o Energys R&D unding to usher

in new scientic breakthroughs that could reduceAmerican dependency on oil and help close theederal decit.

Similarly, Politico reported that the White House isundertaking eorts to shield the R&D budget romcuts during scal cli negotiations.

aken together, the comments demonstrate a senseo bipartisan support or science R&D as well as aninterest rom both sides o the aisle in investing inenergy technology that will lead to innovation.

Te support or the science budget comes at a time

when unding is actually signicantly lower thanin previous years. Adjusting or infation, ederalunding or energy-related R&D has allen by 70percent between 1978 and 2006, rom nearly $7billion to just $2 billion.

Still, science unding could be cut i Congress ailsto prevent sequestration, triggering $1.2 trillion inautomatic spending cuts over 10 years. Sequestration

would cut an estimate $618 million dollars romDoE programs involved in R&D. Tis would have

obvious ramications on Americas ability to undadvancements in energy.

Even i sequestration is avoided, R&D unding maybe slashed as part o a bipartisan package that cutsgovernment spending generally.

Policymakers routinely express a sense o supportor R&D in the abstract, but when the rubbermeets the road, too oten long-term R&D programsare cut. One example is with the Oce o Fusion

Energy Sciences, which conducts research intousion energy. Although usion energy promisesto produce clean, sae and abundant energy whencommercialized, Congress is considering cutting itsbudget to save money. Tis short-term thinking ismisplaced.

As ASP noted in a act sheet published a ewweeks ago, the American innovation system hasopened up new industries rom key technologicalbreakthroughs. Examples can be seen with nuclearpower, aviation, GPS and the internet, just to namea ew.

Cutting science unding now would be a pennysaved and a pound oolish. Te challenges are toodaunting rom rising global energy demand, toresource scarcity, to climate change technology
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/rd-funding-critical-to-american-competitiveness/http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/270629-sen-alexander-double-doe-research-funding-end-wind-credit-https://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=16922http://www.secureenergy.org/sites/default/files/SAFE_National-Strategy-for-Energy-Security_0.pdfhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdfhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdfhttp://www.secureenergy.org/sites/default/files/SAFE_National-Strategy-for-Energy-Security_0.pdfhttps://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=16922http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/270629-sen-alexander-double-doe-research-funding-end-wind-credit-http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/rd-funding-critical-to-american-competitiveness/


12/52

12


will be needed to solve the biggest global problems.America certainly needs to get its scal house in order,but it also needs to also invest or the uture.

For more inormation about the importance oscientic research and our national security read the

ASP act sheet on science and national security

New Fusion Report: Shit Focus to ProducingPractical Energy

Nick Cunningham

Flashpoint Blog

9 Nov 2012

Te Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-prot research organization supported by major utili-ties, recently published a report on the prospects orusion energy in the coming decades.

Tere are two main approaches to usion energy Magnetic Connement Fusion and Inertial Conne-ment Fusion. Both approaches have subcategories(EPRI counts seven approaches in total), and the EPRIreport provides some technical explanations o each,including potential advantages and limitations.

EPRIs report issues three key recommendations: 1)direct more usion research to operational challengeso a power plant, 2) identiy common materials andtechnology needs that could be used in multiple ap-proaches to usion, 3) monitor and periodically evalu-ate status usion research, so as to identiy the mostpromising concepts.

Te rst recommendation revolves around the no-tion that usion energy research needs to be ocusedmore on how to produce usion or practical purposes harnessing energy in a power plant. Tis would bea departure rom the current ocus, as EPRI suggests,

which centers on basic research instead o how to pro-duce practical energy.

Te second recommendation relates to the act one o the main technical barriers to producing energy rom usion is in materials science. For in mnetic usion devices tokamaks harness hot plato compress uel. In Inertial usion, lasers shoot contained in a pellet. However, one major obstacl

both approaches is nding the right materials that handle the extreme temperatures. I scientists candress that problem, one o the major technical hups can be addressed.

Te third recommendation monitoring the statuusion research is an interesting one because aright now, it is unclear which approach will be succul. Pursuing multiple options will increase the pability o success. However, periodically evaluausion programs will allow the usion community

identiy which approaches appear to be the most lito lead to practical usion power.

Once usion research nears commercialization, Eprovides two ollow-on recommendations: the eslishment o an advisory group o utilities to planusion power plants; and the need to begin the relatory ramework or permitting and licensing. Ttwo recommendations are important once upower is proven to be viable, the electric power ind

try and the regulatory authorities need to be readpave the way or commercial usion power.

Getting electrons on the grid rom a usion reactor take time and investment. EPRI concluded, that ltimately, demonstration acilities sponsored by U.S. Department o Energy will be required, jus

was the case in the early days o water reactor tnologies.

EPRI concluded that all seven usion proposals (wh

includes subcategories o Magnetic and Inertial usare worthy o continuing R&D unding but none were ready to be exploited as near-term posources.

o see more on ASPs usion work, clickhere.
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/fact-sheet-science-and-americas-national-security/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/new-fusion-report-shift-focus-to-producing-practical-energy/http://fire.pppl.gov/EPRI__Fusion_Report_10-2012.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/issues/climate-energy-and-security/energy/fusion2020/http://americansecurityproject.org/issues/climate-energy-and-security/energy/fusion2020/http://fire.pppl.gov/EPRI__Fusion_Report_10-2012.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/new-fusion-report-shift-focus-to-producing-practical-energy/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/fact-sheet-science-and-americas-national-security/


13/52

13

NUCLEAR SECURIY

We can cut some spending on nuclearstrategy

LtGen Dirk Jameson USAF (Ret.)

Stars and Stripes

14 Dec 2012

Policymakers consumed with avoiding the scalcli are missing a critical opportunity to review U.S.nuclear posture. Te rapidly changing world, aging

nuclear systems, and pressing budget issues make thisthe right time to update our nuclear strategy or the21st century.

oday, our nuclear strategy still bears the imprinto the Cold War. Te nuclear triad retains our sameCold War arsenal, but reduced in size. It is still arbeyond the level that rational military strategists ndnecessary or practical. With the Cold War seen clearlyin our rearview mirror, the U.S. and Russia must

continue to reduce the mountain o nuclear weaponsso ill-matched to combat modern threats.

Unless a careul reassessment o current needs is madenow, we will be spending billions o dollars to extendthe lie o each leg o the triad. Building a new feeto nuclear submarines will cost an estimated $100billion. A new nuclear bomber could cost up to $60

billion. Te Minuteman III ICBM modernizationand replacement program will cost about $7 billion.Spending billions on nuclear orces beyond acredible deterrent diverts resources rom the deensecapabilities our troops really need.

A reassessment o the U.S. nuclear strategy mustquestion whether we still need triple redundancy:bombers, submarines and land-based missiles.One element o the reassessment could revalue theoverwhelming conventional advantage the U.S.maintains and reduce the triad to two parts, relyingupon conventional superiority instead o the thirdleg.

In addition, other elements o the nuclear complexmust not escape scrutiny. Examples o wasteul

nuclear programs are everywhere, rom a $10 billionlie extension program or B61 bombs in Europe to a$6 billion acility that produces new plutonium coresor nuclear weapons. Tese costs add up: In the nextdecade America will spend more than hal a trilliondollars on nuclear weapons programs.

A careul study o the capabilities we have and theplanned upgrades in light o the capacity needed willbe a crucial exercise in both cost-eectiveness andsecurity needs. Nuclear doctrine is not sacred. Our

security environment is dierent now, and our orcestructure must be responsive to that environment.

It will be tough sledding to get a undamentalreconceptualization o the Cold War calculus o thetriads redundancies. Te status quo seems sae, andthere are deep intellectual and nancial investmentsin the current conguration. But unnecessaryspending on nuclear capabilities puts U.S. securityat risk. Moreover, an oversized nuclear arsenal sendsthe wrong message to states with potential nuclear

ambitions, undercutting U.S. attempts to preventand reverse prolieration.

National security experts such as Dr. Frank Miller, akey player in nuclear security matters or many years,and Gen. James Cartwright, ormer vice chairmano the Joint Chies o Sta, have set the stage or
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/asp-consensus-member-ltgen-dirk-jameson-in-stars-and-stripes/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/asp-consensus-member-ltgen-dirk-jameson-in-stars-and-stripes/


14/52

14


updating U.S. nuclear posture by asking how manywarheads and platorms are needed to address todayschallenges. As Cartwright noted, Te world haschanged, but the current arsenal carries the baggageo the Cold War.

I recommend a presidential commission o expertsto help ormulate and adjust our nuclear strategy tomeet the military and scal needs o the 21st century.Tis commission should contain experts not only innuclear matters, but those with a deep understandingo current and potential threats. Such a group couldnd ways to redene a nuclear orce o the uturethat is smaller, smarter and more eective than theoversized, unwieldy arsenal o the Cold War.

What Pyongyangs est Means And Whereto Go From Here

Derek Bolton

Flashpoint Blog

17 Dec 2012

North Koreas recent satellite should come as no sur-prise, given Pyongyangs repeated attempts to acquiresuch technology in the ace o international condem-nation, but the announcement is nonetheless unnerv-ing.

Still, rather than intensied pressure and aggressivemilitary posturing that is sure to threaten Pyongyang(and China), the U.S. should undertake condence-building measures in an attempt to orge an environ-ment receptive to a larger, more inclusive deal.

Te rst important act to keep in mind when con-sidering next steps with North Korea is that the suc-cessul launch o the Unha-3 rocket is the rst suchsuccess story. An intercontinental ballistic missile ca-pable o carrying a nuclear warhead is still several di-cult stages away. Condence in the rocket is still ar

rom the levels necessary to utilize the Unha-3 as aoensive weapon, let alone a carrier device or potetial miniaturized nuclear warheads (o which NorKorea has none).

Remaining hurdles include developing the techno

ogy required or a missile to re-enter the earths amosphere once it has been launched, and guidansystems or striking specied targets, all o which wtake multiple tests to master. Finally even with textended range provided by the Unha-3, the DPRis only capable o striking parts o Alaska, where thU.S. has a number o interceptors already in place.

Secondly, a successul policy towards North Kormust take into account that the test o the Unha

was largely derived rom internal actors.

Te Unha-3 launch was likely a tribute to Kim Jongnear the anniversary o his death as well as a showcaor North Koreas strong status in the world. Sua display became especially desirable ater the debaco the Norths ailed launch this April.

Additionally given the success o its rst space launcNorth Korea will now be able to boast o the disparibetween its space program and that oSouth Korea

Finally one cannot overlook the launchs impact oKim Jong Uns hold over North Korea. Reports ovthe past ew weeks have indicated an ongoing reshufing o top military positions within the DPRK, icluding Deense Minister Kim Jong Gak with Geeral Kim Kyok-sik. Te success o the missile launmay boost Kim Jong Uns hold over the military.

Pursuing CBMs could allow or alternative outlets the North to pursue i when addressing domestic cocerns in the uture.

Tis is not to say North Korea should be rewardeor their blatant disregard oUN resolutions specically prohibiting them rom such tests. But increasinsanctions may do little to alter North Korean policInstead Washington, in consultation with Beijing another regional allies with mutual security interes
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/what-pyongyangs-test-means-and-where-to-go-from-here/http://www.nknew.org/2012/12/successful-puts-long-range-nuclear-missile-capability-within-reach/http://www.nknew.org/2012/12/successful-puts-long-range-nuclear-missile-capability-within-reach/http://www.nknews.org/2012/12/understanding-north-koreas-next-satellite-launch/http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-admin/americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/gangsong-daeguk-driving-recent-events-in-north-koreanhttp://www.cfr.org/south-korea/kslv-launch-south-koreas-space-strategy/p29292http://www.nknews.org/2012/12/united-nations-reacts-to-north-korea-rocket-launch-calls-for-appropriate-response/http://www.nknews.org/2012/12/united-nations-reacts-to-north-korea-rocket-launch-calls-for-appropriate-response/http://www.cfr.org/south-korea/kslv-launch-south-koreas-space-strategy/p29292http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-admin/americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/gangsong-daeguk-driving-recent-events-in-north-koreanhttp://www.nknews.org/2012/12/understanding-north-koreas-next-satellite-launch/http://www.nknew.org/2012/12/successful-puts-long-range-nuclear-missile-capability-within-reach/http://www.nknew.org/2012/12/successful-puts-long-range-nuclear-missile-capability-within-reach/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/what-pyongyangs-test-means-and-where-to-go-from-here/


15/52

15

must remind North Korea o the olly in their action,while pursuing CBMs to allow or greater communi-cation, trust, and transparency.

One important aspect o the launch that must beinvestigated urther are the rumors surroundingpos-

sible participation by Iranian scientists. While stilllacking sound evidence, such collusion would lead toears over inormation prolieration (Iran could ben-et rom inormation garnered rom the launch), andthe extent o cooperation between the two countries.

Isolation has ailed to halt North Koreas nuclearprogress. Addressing this security challenge willthereore require a joint regional approach ocusedon ostering an environment suitable to more longterm-overarching engagement that can address non-

prolieration issues. Tis will take substantial timeand commitment by all sides, but such eorts are themost likely to bear ruit.

Experts Support Resizing the NuclearArsenal

Mitchell Freddura

Flashpoint Blog

20 Nov 2012

In an era o scal constraint and shiting nationalsecurity challenges, the United States nuclear secu-rity strategy should not be inormed by anachronis-tic Cold War assumptions. A smaller nuclear arsenal

would more eectively address todays security threatsand ree up resources or critical deense capabilities.

Tis is one o the takeaways o a new report by theStimson Center entitled, A New US Deense Strat-egy or a New Era: Military Superiority, Agility, andEciency. Te report, whose deense advisory com-mittee includes experts like ASP Consensus mem-bers Graham Allison and Amb. Richard Burt and

ASP Board member Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, ar-

gues that U.S. deense strategy and spending priori-ties should be realigned in light o 21st century secu-rity threats.

Updating the U.S. nuclear posture is a key part odeveloping a more eective deense strategy. As the

report notes, the size o US strategic nuclear orces isdriven by perceived requirements to deter nuclear at-tacks on the US or its allies by Russia; no other nationhas a comparable nuclear arsenal.

Te report recommends that the US should reducethe size o its nuclear orces as rapidly as possible,preerable through a new treaty with Russia, andmake commensurate reductions in planned nuclearmodernization programs.

Reducing the number o strategic delivery systems,delaying some modernization programs, and reduc-ing some missile deense systems could save an esti-mated $60 billion over the next ten years, the reportsays.

Some o the experts on the reports advisory commit-tee argue in appended comments that the report doesnot go ar enough in its nuclear recommendations,particularly with respect to the triad o nuclear deliv-ery systems bombers, submarines, and land-based

missiles.

Gordon Adams, a distinguished ellow at the StimsonCenter, argues or retaining only nuclear submarines,the most survivable leg o the triad. Similarly, Am-bassador Richard Burt and General James Cartwrightreer to their recent report calling or eliminatingland-based missiles and maintaining a total stockpileo 900 warheads.

Te Stimson report demonstrates that while security

experts may disagree on the size and shape o the u-ture U.S. nuclear arsenal, there is a broad bipartisansupport or updating our nuclear strategy to refectthe 21st century security environment.

In addition to the signers o the Stimson report,supporters o a new nuclear posture include ormer
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167212153/what-north-koreas-rocket-launch-tells-us-about-iran-rolehttp://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167212153/what-north-koreas-rocket-launch-tells-us-about-iran-rolehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/they_actually_did_it?page=0,1http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/experts-support-resizing-the-nuclear-arsenal/http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/consensus/members/graham-allison/http://americansecurityproject.org/consensus/members/rick-burt/http://americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/lieutenant-general-daniel-christman-usa-ret/http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6395109/GZ%20US%20Nuclear%20Policy%20Commission%20Report.pdfhttp://dl.dropbox.com/u/6395109/GZ%20US%20Nuclear%20Policy%20Commission%20Report.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/lieutenant-general-daniel-christman-usa-ret/http://americansecurityproject.org/consensus/members/rick-burt/http://americansecurityproject.org/consensus/members/graham-allison/http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/experts-support-resizing-the-nuclear-arsenal/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/they_actually_did_it?page=0,1http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167212153/what-north-koreas-rocket-launch-tells-us-about-iran-rolehttp://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167212153/what-north-koreas-rocket-launch-tells-us-about-iran-role


16/52

16


Secretary o State Colin Powell, ormer commandero U.S. Strategic Command Gen. Eugene Habiger,and Sen. om Coburn (R-OK), whose recent decitreduction plan included $79 billion in savings romeliminating unnecessary nuclear capabilities.

As Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson (ret.), ormer deputy com-mander in chie o U.S. Strategic Command, recentlywrote, Having more weapons doesnt mean we arewinningor will even succeed in deterring othersrom pursuing nuclear weapons. It merely refects thatour nuclear strategy is ill-suited to our times.

Maintaining unnecessary nuclear capabilities divertsresources rom critical deense programs. Te U.S.must eliminate Cold War nuclear capabilities and in-vest instead in a deense strategy or the 21st century.

Nuclear Programs Force Deense Budgetradeos

Mary Kaszynski

Flashpoint Blog

20 Nov 2012

Tere are a lot o ways you spend $640 billion. Youmight invest in military capabilities that keep ourtroops sae in the eld. You could expand programsthat benet veterans. You might even put somethingtowards paying o the national debt, which is at $16trillion and climbing.

Instead, U.S. policymakers are choosing to spend $640billion over the next ten years on nuclear weapons andrelated programs.

Te $640 billion question, as Ploughshares FundsBen Loehrke puts it, is this: Should the U.S. putits money toward a Cold War nuclear strategy? Orshould those unds be spent to equip the military toaddress 21st century realities?

oday, two decades ater the Cold War, the U.S. sthas over 5,000 warheads in its active stockpile. Morover, we are planning to embark on several ambitioand expensive modernization programs or nuclebombs and delivery systems.

Tis oversized nuclear arsenal ails to address the ntional security threats we ace today. As Lt. Gen. DiJameson, ormer deputy commander in chie anchie o sta o SRACOM, recently wrote, Haing more weapons doesnt mean we are winning

will even succeed in deterring others rom pursuinnuclear weapons. It merely refects that our nuclestrategy is ill-suited to our times.

Spending more on nuclear weapons means spening less on more eective deense capabilities. T

tradeo becomes even starker as the Pentagon budgaces budget constraints. Unless we take a hard look our nuclear spending plan, unnecessary nuclear prgrams could squeeze more important programs out the budget.

In a $640 billion budget, examples o unnecessaprograms are not hard to nd. Te lie extension prgram or the nuclear bombs deployed in Europe, example, is estimated at $10 billion more than doble last years cost estimate. A acility to produce neplutonium pits, the cores o nuclear weapons, coucost close to $6 billion. Buying 12 new nuclear-armsubmarines will cost about $100 billion; operating tfeet will cost billions more, or total liecycle costs close to $350 billion.

Military leaders, security experts, and policymaers on both sides o the aisle agree that eliminatinexcess nuclear capabilities will strengthen U.S. ntional security. General James Cartwright, orm

head o U.S. Strategic Command, ormer Secretary State Colin Powell, andmanyothers have called shedding Cold War capabilities or a smaller, more eective nuclear orce.

Te answer to the $640 billion question is cleaSpending billions on unnecessary nuclear capabiliti
http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.htmlhttp://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.htmlhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/nuclear-programs-force-defense-budget-tradeoffs/http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-11-14/640-billion-questionhttp://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/84.full.pdfhttp://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.htmlhttp://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/07/b61-12gold.phphttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/07-25-12-NavyShipbuilding_0.pdfhttp://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/dod-new-nuclear-subs-will-cost-347-billion-to-acquire-operate/menu-id-720.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/cartwright-key-retired-general-backs-large-us-nuclear-reduction.htmlhttp://www.rollcall.com/news/loehrke_the_640_billion_nuclear_question-219156-1.htmlhttp://www.ndr.de/info/programm/sendungen/streitkraefte_und_strategien/globalzeroreport101.pdfhttp://www.georgiapoliticalreview.com/exclusive-interview-with-eugene-habiger-4-star-general-and-former-head-of-us-strategic-command/http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2011-07-19/nuclear-cut-deficithttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2011-07-19/nuclear-cut-deficithttp://www.georgiapoliticalreview.com/exclusive-interview-with-eugene-habiger-4-star-general-and-former-head-of-us-strategic-command/http://www.ndr.de/info/programm/sendungen/streitkraefte_und_strategien/globalzeroreport101.pdfhttp://www.rollcall.com/news/loehrke_the_640_billion_nuclear_question-219156-1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/cartwright-key-retired-general-backs-large-us-nuclear-reduction.htmlhttp://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/dod-new-nuclear-subs-will-cost-347-billion-to-acquire-operate/menu-id-720.htmlhttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/07-25-12-NavyShipbuilding_0.pdfhttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/07/b61-12gold.phphttp://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.htmlhttp://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/84.full.pdfhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-11-14/640-billion-questionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/nuclear-programs-force-defense-budget-tradeoffs/http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.htmlhttp://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/04/dirk-jameson-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-weapons.html


17/52

17

isnt just unwise; it puts U.S. national security at riskby diverting resources rom necessary deense pro-grams.

Te real $640 billion question is this: will parochialinterests trump national security? Or will policymak-ers make the right choice to end Cold War thinkingand bring our nuclear strategy into the 21 st century?

Wanted: ransparency in the NuclearBudget

Mary Kaszynski

Flashpoint Blog

11 Oct 2012

Even in todays hyper-partisan environment, theresone thing policymakers on both sides o the aisleagree on: eliminating wasteul deense spending is acrucial part o solving the nations scal crisis.

Teres just one problem: no one knows how big thenuclear budget is. Teres no line item or nuclearspending. Te National Nuclear Security Administra-

tion doesnt know how much the nuclear enterprisecosts. Neither has the Department o Deense. (Or, ithey have crunched the numbers, they havent sharedthe results with taxpayers or policymakers.)

Its hard or Congress to exercise oversight overthe nuclear weapons budget when they cant get astraightorward answer on how big the budget is.

o inject some much-needed transparency into thenuclear budget debate, the Ploughshares Fund, aglobal security oundation (and, in the interests odisclosure, an ASP under) has calculated the costso nuclear weapons and related programs based onpublicly available data.

Te conclusion: the U.S. is on track to spend about$640 billion on nuclear weapons and related pro-

grams over the next decade.

Included in that topline amount is unding or somecritical nuclear initiatives, like programs to secureand remove nuclear materials in vulnerable locations.Other nuclear programs are more questionable.

ake the B61 nuclear bomb modernization programor example. One a year ago the price o extendingthe service lie o the nuclear warheads deployed inEurope was pegged at $4 billion. oday the estimatedprice tag is $10 billion. Tats $10 billion or nuclear

weapons that most experts agree serve no militarypurpose.

It seems that the more you dig into the nuclear weap-ons budget, the more examples o waste and mis-

management you nd. Te cost estimate or one newnuclear acility has exploded rom $375 million in2001 to almost $6 billion today.

We learned recently that the price tag or anothernuclear building - a plant to produce uel that noone wants to buy - has increased by $2 billion. Andthen theres the $6.5 billion acility that has to be re-designed, ater hal a billion dollars has already beenspent on the project, because all the equipmentwontt in the building.

Ending these boondoggles is a good rst step towardseliminating the at in the nuclear budget. But the un-derlying problem is the outdated nuclear strategy thatcalls or maintaining unnecessary nuclear capabilities.

Because o this outdated strategy, and members oCongress with vested interests in nuclear projects, theU.S. is planning to spend billions to modernize thetriad nuclear delivery systems - bombers, submarines,and land-based missiles.

Some current military leaders (again, those withan interest in protecting the nuclear budget) insistthat maintaining all three platorms is the right thingto do, even when spending cuts loom. But manyretired military leaders (including General JamesCartwright, ormer commander o the U.S. Strategic
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/wanted-transparency-in-the-nuclear-budget/http://www.ploughshares.org/http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_steal_at_10_billion?page=fullhttp://www.good.is/posts/what-you-won-t-hear-in-the-presidential-debates-the-bombs-we-left-behindhttp://www.good.is/posts/what-you-won-t-hear-in-the-presidential-debates-the-bombs-we-left-behindhttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://www.eurasiareview.com/12072012-drinking-mox-laced-lemonade-oped/http://www.eurasiareview.com/12072012-drinking-mox-laced-lemonade-oped/http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2012/10/4/18624/6553http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/10/upf-to-be-redesigned-because-e.htmlhttp://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/10/upf-to-be-redesigned-because-e.htmlhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228323-how-to-kill-the-nuclear-triadhttp://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernizationhttp://panys.org/WordPress/2012/02/new-long-range-nuclear-bomber-fact-sheethttp://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_134/Benjamin_Loehrke_Stop_Sinking_Dollars_Into_Cold_War_Strategy-214456-1.htmlhttp://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hartung-cut-costs-by-losing-the-bombs-1.3733939http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-military-advocates-maintaining-nuclear-triad-despite-rising-costs/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-military-advocates-maintaining-nuclear-triad-despite-rising-costs/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-military-advocates-maintaining-nuclear-triad-despite-rising-costs/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-military-advocates-maintaining-nuclear-triad-despite-rising-costs/http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hartung-cut-costs-by-losing-the-bombs-1.3733939http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_134/Benjamin_Loehrke_Stop_Sinking_Dollars_Into_Cold_War_Strategy-214456-1.htmlhttp://panys.org/WordPress/2012/02/new-long-range-nuclear-bomber-fact-sheethttp://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernizationhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228323-how-to-kill-the-nuclear-triadhttp://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/10/upf-to-be-redesigned-because-e.htmlhttp://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/10/upf-to-be-redesigned-because-e.htmlhttp://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2012/10/4/18624/6553http://www.eurasiareview.com/12072012-drinking-mox-laced-lemonade-oped/http://www.eurasiareview.com/12072012-drinking-mox-laced-lemonade-oped/http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/eight-reasons-to-scrap-cmrr-the-energy-departments-billion-dollar-nuclear-facility.htmlhttp://www.good.is/posts/what-you-won-t-hear-in-the-presidential-debates-the-bombs-we-left-behindhttp://www.good.is/posts/what-you-won-t-hear-in-the-presidential-debates-the-bombs-we-left-behindhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_steal_at_10_billion?page=fullhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-10-07/how-would-you-spend-640-billionhttp://www.ploughshares.org/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/wanted-transparency-in-the-nuclear-budget/


18/52

18


Command) argue that its time rethink the triad andthe Cold War strategythat underpins it.

Maintaining excess nuclear capabilities is a strategicmistake. Nuclear programs that we dont need divertresources rom deense programs that we do need to

address todays security challenges.

Te nuclear weapons budget has been hidden or artoo long by shoddy accounting and a lack o trans-parency. Its time or some transparency and account-ability. Its time or policymakers to exercise someoversight, scrutinize the nuclear budget, and elimi-nate waste and mismanagement. Our nuclear orces,and national security, will be stronger or it.

NAIONAL SECURIYSRAEGY

Supporting the Foreign Service Support

our Military

Mathew Wallin

Flashpoint Blog

18 Dec 2012

Te U.S. oreign service is comprised o roughl13,300 personnel deployed around the world. Tiis less than the manpower o2 carrier strike groups

which are oten deployed more than two at a time tsmall regions like the Persian Gul. With more tha285 missions overseas, that averages to less than 47oreign service ocers (FSOs) per station. o puthings in perspective, many big box retail stores havstang sizes larger than this, and they oten onlserve a ew square miles in a city. Not surprisingly, thGAO released a report this year indicatingsignicanexperience gaps and vacancies or overseas positions

Tomas Boyatt, Ronald Neumann, and AbelardValdez just authored an op-ed in Te Hill contendinthat the oreign service needs more support. Tis goebeyond throwing lump sums o money or issues odiplomatic security. Rather, our FSOs need the training, leadership, stang and appropriate positioninto succeed in their missionat ar lower costs than
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/cartwright-key-retired-general-backs-large-us-nuclear-reduction.html?_r=0http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120917/DEFFEAT05/309170005/Deconstructing-Triadhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/238041-revising-the-outdated-expensive-nuclear-strategy-can-pay-dividendshttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/supporting-the-foreign-service-supports-our-military/http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspxhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/273285-foreign-service-nneds-supporthttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/273285-foreign-service-nneds-supporthttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspxhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdfhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/supporting-the-foreign-service-supports-our-military/http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/238041-revising-the-outdated-expensive-nuclear-strategy-can-pay-dividendshttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20120917/DEFFEAT05/309170005/Deconstructing-Triadhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/cartwright-key-retired-general-backs-large-us-nuclear-reduction.html?_r=0


19/52

19

the deployment o a military expeditionary orce.Te average annual cost o deploying a single sol-dier to Iraq was $685,000, and has been $1,186,000or Aghanistan since FY2005.

Just as corporations hire the best suited candidate orspecic positions in the private sector, the State De-partment should place its oreign service ocers inthe positions they are best suited to serve. It makes nosense to deploy an individual with fuency in Japaneseto Kenya. Yes, there are situations in which there maybe overabundances or deciencies o certain special-ists and language speakers, but why transer peoplearound when they are clearly most suited to ben-et our national security by serving in a particularregion? It would seem that i building relationships

with countries is an extended process, that transer-

ring people out o that country ater between two andour years is counterproductive.

Te oreign service, despite being a diplomatic po-sition, still comes with a degree o risk. While ourleaders should not ignore this risk, they should un-derstand that some risk is required in order to gainbenet. Tough protecting the lives o our diplomatsand oreign service ocers is paramount, that ulti-mately serves little purpose i our diplomats are pre-

vented rom doing the jobs they are assigned.A public diplomat can no better accomplish his or hermission rom behind a barricade than rom beyondthe grave. Its the equivalent o sending a soldier toght a war without a weapon. Public diplomats toolsor success are their personal, physical presence andhumanity, backed up by the support o the AmericanGovernment. In order to be credible, public diplo-mats must be seen as caring as much or the people

with whom they communicate as they do or them-

selves, and as supporting their words with actions.

Daryl Copeland, a ormer Canadian diplomat andauthor o Guerrilla Diplomacy, recently wrote o thediculties omaintaining diplomatic securityalong

with the ability o diplomats to actually practice di-plomacy. He wrote:

When you turn diplomatic missions into somethingresembling Fort Apache, and when diplomatic prac-tice is limited by inordinate restrictions arising romconcerns about personal saety, the establishment ovital local connections, and o relationships based oncondence, trust and respect, is next to impossible.

Policy makers need to keep an eye on the long-termbenets o true diplomatic engagement. Short-termrisks may deliver on long-term payo at signicantlylower cost, decreasing the likelihood o expensive anddeadly military commitments down the road. Mem-bers o our military risk their lives to carry out ournational policies. While diplomats generally do notght our nations wars, they sometimes ace similardanger doing the work that is intended to make sure

we do not have those wars to ghtand that is sup-

portive o our military. Surely, that must be worthsome risk.

America: Surpassed by the United Kingdom

Mathew Wallin

Flashpoint Blog

19 Nov 2012Word is out that the U.K. has toppled the U.S.in Monocles 2012 Sot Power Survey. Given all thepositive news coming out o the Isles this year, oneshould neither be surprised, nor particularly worried.

Chances are, there are likely some who are not im-pressed. As evidenced by the Obama-Maroney photoreleased by the White House yesterday, Americanmemes have a sot power o their own and American

culture is strong.Certainly, the U.K. has had a lot going or it in thepast year, including the London Olympics a sotpower spectacle o the most overt kind. Tere wasalso the Queens Diamond Jubilee, William andKates Asia tour, the success o Downton Abbey, Sky-
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/06/fy-2011-defense-budget-analysis/http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/06/fy-2011-defense-budget-analysis/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/america-surpassed-by-the-united-kingdom/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-8326452.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-8326452.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-8326452.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-8326452.htmlhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/america-surpassed-by-the-united-kingdom/http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/06/fy-2011-defense-budget-analysis/http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/06/fy-2011-defense-budget-analysis/


20/52

20


all, and much more. 2012 has been about celebratingall things British. Yet since sot power is a subjectivemeasurement, it must be understood that other re-search publications, such as the Anholt-GK NationBrand Index, may produce dierent results, as indi-cated in its 2011 numbers.

Tat is not to suggest that America shouldnt be cog-nizant o its sot power directionwhile a drop romnumber 1 to a measly 2nd place ranking isnt exactlydrastic, there are a ew areas the U.S. could improveon to increase its sot power draw. Americana is anever-present i not pervasive actor in many countries

worldwide, indicating a certain amount o sot powersuccess. Whether music, movies, ood, or other ormso American culture, the United States is certainlynot in decline. However its existence as part o many

peoples every day lives may in act contribute to asubconscious ignorance in some cases, rendering peo-ple more aware o sot power advancements by othercountries. We should keep in mind that or some, thepervasiveness o American culture creates resentment.

Also notable is that in some countries, a singular in-stance, such as the rise o K-Pop beyond East Asia thisyear, can contribute disproportionately to increases inthe sot power o that nation. Along this point, VOA

reports that the popularity o PSYs Gangnam Stylecould contribute signicantly to South Koreas tour-ism economy. Tats a very real hard power gain roma sot power resource. Tis year, people around the

world are ar more aware o South Korea as an ex-porter o culture. Te question is, will any o thatawareness seep its way across the DMZ into NorthKorea? Ater all, there are those that argue that Rockand Roll played a part in eventuallycausing the all othe Soviet Union.

Despite the U.K.s impressive showing this year, somemay wonder exactly how America lost its rst placeooting. Factors contributing to a drop in stature or

America could include the state o our politics,whichWalter Pincus this year called as bad as he has everseen. Te election, while ascinating much o the

world, could be seen as positive in its tale o democrcy, yet harmul in its sometimes dirty politics. Furthcontributing to a decline, Americas persistent nacial troubles and looming scal cli certainly do nshed a positive light.

In 2012, Americas biggest sot power success proably resides in the Mars Curiosity Rover, and polimakers should be well-aware o the inspiring powo our space program. Also not to be orgotten is thU.S. perormance in the London Olympics, incluing Michael Phelps spectacular accomplishmenBut will the U.S. be able to reclaim its #1 spot rothe U.K. in 2013? Only time and culture will tell.

Public Diplomacy Ater the Election

Mathew Wallin

Flashpoint Blog

06 Nov 2012

Regardless o who wins the election today, Americapublic diplomacy must remain a primary consideratioin the course o oreign policy.

Here are 5 priorities in PD or the next administratio

Fortiy

Relationships with our allies around the wormust continue to be ortied. American eorts combatting terrorism, challenging our enemieand solving our mutual problems are best bolsterthrough cooperative relationships with other nationTe world is too interconnected or America to tack

problems on its own. Engaging our allies and workintogether provides our best chances or geopoliticsuccess and breaking those regimes which wish to dharm.

Leadership
http://www.gfk.com/group/press_information/press_releases/008789/index.en.htmlhttp://www.voanews.com/content/gangman-style-boosting-toruisn-in-south-korea/1547441.htmlhttp://www.voanews.com/content/gangman-style-boosting-toruisn-in-south-korea/1547441.htmlhttp://www.pri.org/stories/world/beatles-rolling-stones-and-rock-and-roll-brought-down-the-soviet-union3972.htmlhttp://www.pri.org/stories/world/beatles-rolling-stones-and-rock-and-roll-brought-down-the-soviet-union3972.htmlhttp://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/walter-pincus-our-politics-are-as-bad-as-i-have-ever-seen/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/walter-pincus-our-politics-are-as-bad-as-i-have-ever-seen/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/public-diplomacy-after-the-election/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/public-diplomacy-after-the-election/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/walter-pincus-our-politics-are-as-bad-as-i-have-ever-seen/http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/walter-pincus-our-politics-are-as-bad-as-i-have-ever-seen/http://www.pri.org/stories/world/beatles-rolling-stones-and-rock-and-roll-brought-down-the-soviet-union3972.htmlhttp://www.pri.org/stories/world/beatles-rolling-stones-and-rock-and-roll-brought-down-the-soviet-union3972.htmlhttp://www.voanews.com/content/gangman-style-boosting-toruisn-in-south-korea/1547441.htmlhttp://www.voanews.com/content/gangman-style-boosting-toruisn-in-south-korea/1547441.htmlhttp://www.gfk.com/group/press_information/press_releases/008789/index.en.html


21/52

21

For more than a decade, Americas public diplomacyapparatus witnessed a great deal o diculty inmaintaining strong and consistent leadership. Priorto ara Sonenshines appointment this year, theUnder Secretary or Public Diplomacy and Public

Aairs position remained unlled 30 percent o

the time since its establishment in 1999. Te nextadministration must support the importance othis position by continuing its current leadershipor minimizing its vacancy. Americas message to the

world is vitalstrong, consistent leadership is vital tosupporting that message.

Follow Trough

Words must be backed up with action in order tocreate trust relationships with oreign populations.

Te next administration must choose its words andcommitments wisely, ensuring that promises made tooten-skeptical oreign populations are kept, assumingthey are achievable promises in the rst place. Wordsthat are not backed up by action and tangibleaccomplishments damage American credibility in aashion that has long lasting ramications. Successesin this eld tend to be ar outweighed by perceivedailures or inconsistenciesminimizing thosenegatives is crucial. Te United States must set an

example to be ollowed, and keeping to our wordsand commitments is crucial.

Listen

Te concerns, aspirations, and desires o oreignpublics cannot be ignored, especially when developingoreign policy solutions that either aect them orotherwise require their cooperation or success. TeUnited States must make greater eorts to trulyunderstand the societies and cultures o oreign

countries in order to help develop solutions thatbest achieve Americas strategic goals. Listening givesAmerica credibility as a nation that is not solely sel-interested. Ignoring oreign opinion renders thesepopulations less cooperative, and makes Americaappear to be a less credible communicator.

Understand

Public diplomacy is not a cure all, and cannot beexpected to make up or shortcomings in policy.Policy makers must always consider the basic strategicgoal they are trying to accomplish beore developingplans to achieve that goal. In order to create successulpublic diplomacy campaigns, practitioners and policymakers must understand both how it can help, as

well as its inherent limits. Tis will educating policymakers about PD, and developing metrics to bettercomprehend how it can be eectively used.

Indias Pursuit o Hydrocarbons: Fueled byMore Tan Energy Concerns

Colin Geraghty

Oil and Gas Monitor

16 Oct, 2012

Indias rise in world aairs since 1998 has been under-pinned by rapid economic growth that began with theliberalization measures o 1991. Te result is, amongother things, a sharp increase in energy needs (Indiais the worlds ourth-largest energy consumer) whichits domestic resources are inadequate to meet. WhileIndia is seeking to diversiy its energy sources, invest-ing in renewable energy, as well as nuclear power, itsreliance on coal and hydrocarbons will only growover the next 20-30 years and grow aster than itsdomestic production will. Imports o oil already ac-count or over 16% o Indias total energy consump-tion, while domestic production rose by only 1% in

2011-2012 over the previous year. Despite the land-mark civil nuclear agreement between the U.S. andIndia, nuclear power will not actor in a signicant

way in Indias energy calculations or the next ew de-cades, and recent legislation passed on nuclear liabili-ty issues may make progress on this ront even slower.
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/colin-geraghty-in-oil-and-gas-monitor-indias-pursuit-of-hydrocarbons-fueled-by-more-than-energy-concerns/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/colin-geraghty-in-oil-and-gas-monitor-indias-pursuit-of-hydrocarbons-fueled-by-more-than-energy-concerns/


22/52

22


Indias growing dependence on imports naturally in-fuences its oreign policy, which now seeks to ensureboth access to hydrocarbons and secure the shippinglanes that transport them to India. In January 2012,Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that En-ergy security has a global dimension. Even with the

best domestic eort our dependence on importedenergy is expected to increase. We need assured ac-cess to imported energy supplies and also access tonew energy related technologies. () We also need aproactive oreign policy, protecting our access to suchresources and to oreign technology.

Te interplay between energy needs and oreign poli-cy plays out in two notable ways.

India currently imports a large part o its oil rom theMiddle East (about 44% o all its oil imports comerom that region), but is constantly seeking out newpartners. It is actively pursuing oil exploration dealsin Myanmar, or instance, and may look to importshale gas rom Australia as well. Most o its oppor-tunities require using shipping lanes. Tough Indiais interested in land routes that might transport hy-drocarbons into India, potential pipelines or natu-ral gas, such the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, or the

urkmenistan-Aghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline,do not gure to actor signicantly into Indias en-ergy equation anytime soon, given the geopoliticalcomplexities and regional turmoil that have hinderedmeaningul progress to date.

Maritime transportation will thus remain the key ex-ternal vector to meeting Indias energy needs. Indiasgrowing dependence on sea lanes o communication,

which carry the vast majority o its imported hydro-

carbons, is ueling its deepening engagement with theIndian Ocean region and beyond. Indeed, successiveChies o Naval Sta (the highest-ranking naval o-cer in India) have cited Indias energy security, as wellas the security o energy fows to and rom India, asa key priority or the Indian Navy as it embarks on alarge-scale modernization drive. As one o the main

rening nations in the Indian Ocean region (with important acilities at Jamnagar on its West coast, instance), Indias concerns involve the sae fow o hdrocarbons it imports or national consumption animports to be rened and then re-exported. Energconsumption and trade both contribute to India

growing naval presence throughout the Indian Ocearegion. Moreover, Indias emergence stems rom economic growth, made possible by its increasing iteraction with the global economy. As a result, it possible that over time India will become more cocerned with preventing disruption, whether by nostate actors such as pirates or due to actions taken another state, o the hydrocarbon highways that forom the Western Indian Ocean region to the AsiPacic nations.

At the same time that energy needs shape Indias oeign policy, oil exploration can also be a pretense achieve other, geopolitical objectives. Te agreemeONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) signed with Vietnaor the right to explore oil o the coast o Vietnam, the South China Sea, may be one o the best-knowexamples o this dynamic. OVL initially backed oo the deal, citing diculties techno-commerciadiculties including drilling the hard seabed, but rversed that decision in July 2012 ater China moved

auction o an area that included the block attributto OVL, claiming it part o Chinese sovereign terrtory. Following Beijings move, the Indian Ministry External Aairs incited OVL to maintain its contraceven without actively exploiting it. Te main value India o the deal with Vietnam wasnt the potential oit might exploit, but the additional leverage and feibility it aorded India vis--vis China.

Articles have fourished predicting conficts betweenergy-hungry India and China, as both nations pla

an increasing emphasis on securing access to hydrocabons in their oreign policy. Such prophecies shoube discounted. Both nations will continue to compeor access to hydrocarbons, whether in Central As(though transportation diculties there will continto impede Indian involvement), in Arica or in cou


23/52

23

tries such as Burma, but such competition will notboil over into overt confict. Tere will even be in-stances o cooperation, such as in Angola and Sou-dan, although the limited results such ventures haveyielded to date suggest this may not be repeated otenmoving orward. (Tere are even reports hinting that

lack o progress in South Soudan is due in part to thegovernments displeasure with Chinas Soudan policy in other terms, Indias ability to access resources isin this case hindered by the policy o its Chinese part-ner, a situation it cannot be eager to repeat.)

In short, India will continue to compete or new op-portunities to gain access to oil resources abroad, asa key part o its eorts to enhance its energy securityand sustain its economic growth, which remains itsoverriding priority. Indian leaders are increasinglyactoring in energy needs as part o its national secu-rity, with naval ocials playing a lead role, but mustdo a better job, as experts such as Michael Kugelmanhave argued. When examining Indias pursuit o oilexploration deals, it is important to bear in mind thatIndias energy needs can shape its actions abroad justas they can be shaped by Indias oreign policy con-siderations.

International law takes on cyber:signicant challenges ahead

Ashley Boyle

Te Hill

24 Sept, 2012

Speaking at the U.S. Cyber Command Inter-AgencyLegal Conerence last week, U.S. State DepartmentLegal Advisor Harold Koh conrmed the U.S. posi-tion that international law is applicable to the cyberenvironment.

In his speech, Koh outlined ten principles guidingU.S. eorts on cyber engagement in the internationalspace, most o which align with key provisions o theallinn Manual on the International Law Applicableto Cyber Warare. Released in early Septemberby NAOsCooperative Cyber Deense Center

o Excellence (CCD COE), the drat unocialdocument was compiled rom the opinions o legaland technical experts, and examines how existinginternational law, jus ad bellum and jus in bello,applies to the cyber environment.

As the incidence o maligned cyber operations in-creases, there is a burgeoning need or an internation-al code o conduct between states a cyber relationsmanual. Given the novel and preeminently intan-

gible characteristics o cyber, the application o lawsdesigned or kinetic activity to this domain presentsseveral challenges that have impeded urther develop-ment o legal rameworks. Fundamental principles ointernational law thresholds, sovereignty, and at-tribution prove particularly challenging to trans-late to the cyber environment, as demonstrated bythe expert opinions set orth in the allinn Manual.

Tresholds - International law would come into play

when a cyber operation conducted within the contexto an international armed confict breaches a thresholdthat qualies it as a use o orce equal to kinetic ac-tivity. According to Rule 30 o the allinn Manual, acyber operation would be a cyber attack i reasonablyexpected to cause injury or death to persons or dam-age or destruction to objects. Considering the intan-gible nature o a cyber operation, physical damage is atall, but certainly not impossible, order. Interestingly,the more pressing concerns o surveillance malware,

cyber espionage, and nancial crimes would likelybe relegated to the domestic arena as cyber crime.

Sovereignty - International law is grounded in statesovereignty, a somewhat abstract concept that has un-derpinned the architecture o world order since West-phalia: the independent authority o a government ex-
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/ashley-boyle-in-the-hill-international-law-takes-on-cyber/http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/ashley-boyle-in-the-hill-international-law-takes-on-cyber/


24/52

24


ercised over a discrete geographic area. Conversely, itwould seem that the architecture o the cyber environ-ment has developed outside modern notions o geo-politics, especially given that its end product, inorma-tion, transcends all geopolitical and social boundaries.

However, a physical inrastructure underlies the cy-ber environment, rom one nations servers to un-dersea cables linking continents to satellites bounc-ing signals overhead. Tis inrastructure is ownedpiecemeal by individual nations and is thereoresubject to international law. As such, a nation ex-ercises sovereign control over the cyber inrastruc-ture inside its territory or in its possession; a nationalso has jurisdiction over any cyber activities con-ducted within itsterritory as well as those that use

its inrastructure, whether such activities originatewithin its territory or are simply passing through.

Attribution - Cyber activity lends itsel to anonym-ity via multiple layers o abstraction. o oversim-pliy, a cyber operation can be launched by a citizeno State A rom the territory o State B and targetState C. Te citizen o State A can use various tech-niques at the point o origin to obscure his identityas well as route the operation through any num-ber o nations and inrastructures between the op-

erations launch in State B, and its target, State C.

Determining responsibility or a cyber operation re-quires both the technical ability to trace the operationback to its creator an eort that ails more otenthat it succeeds and a legal ramework by whichto assign responsibility. I the perpetrator o a cy-ber attack were to be ound, assigning responsibil-ity remains a complicated matter because it is notrelegated solely to the perpetrator. Te operations

point o origin, the inrastructures through whichit passed, its target, resulting damage, and jurisdic-tion at each node in the attack would also actorinto any determinations on state-level culpability.

echnology has historically preceded the law. Cyber

operations have already ar outpaced the developmeo legal rameworks, which ace challenges in tranlating undamental principles o international lato the cyber domain. While a cyber operation thunequivocally breaches international law may hayet to occur, the current absence o a legal ramewo

enables actors deserving o punitive action to operawithout accountability. It also leaves open the utupotential or alse-positives (incorrect assignments responsibility) and unintended consequences. Kohaddress was well-timed. Tere is a growing demanto understand how international law applies in thcyber environment, and it is essential that the U.have a leading role in the discussion.


25/52

25

ASYMMERICOPERAIONS

Drone Knowns and Unknowns

Joshua Foust

OpenCanada

13 Dec 2012

Why the discussion about drones is vague and mud-dled at best.

One o the biggest challenges in discussing the waythe U.S. uses drones to target suspected terrorists isestablishing basic data and agreeing to terms. Te de-

bate oten rests on muddled and vague terms, whichresults in a lot o assumption but very little analysisbased in act. In addition, the data to support manypublic stances on drones is neither rigorous nor ex-haustive, which makes drawing rm conclusionsabout the program dicult, i not impossible.

Put in the simplest terms, the drone debate is notactually about

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-american-security-project
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

American Security Quarterly - Jan 2013

Documents