BACKGROUNDER

No. 2826 | JULY 11, 2013

Disarm Now, Ask Questions Later: Obamas Nuclear Weapons Policy

Baker Spring
Abstract

President Barack Obamas declared goal of eliminating the U.S. nuclear arsenal appears to be driving U.S. nuclear policy. The Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, which recommends reducing the number of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third, appears to have resulted from choosing the amount of reduction rst and then justifying the number after the fact, rather than assessing U.S. deterrence needs rst and then choosing the number of weapons that would meet that need. The Administrations backward approach to policymaking threatens to undermine the security of the United States and its allies.

Key Points

While President Obama was speaking in Berlin on June 19 about taking a step toward total nuclear disarmament, the White House issued a statement on how the President had adopted a policy that would change how the United States might employ nuclear weapons in the midst of a future crisis. President Obama has apparently decided first to reduce the number of weapons in the U.S. arsenal to meet his arms control objectives and then changed the policy to justify the lower number. The result will be a nuclear arsenal that both quantitatively and qualitatively is insufficient to defend U.S. vital interests. The United States needs a nuclear force along with defensive and conventional strike weapons that can protect and defend the American people and U.S. allies. This will require more nuclear weapons and a higherquality nuclear force than what the President says he wants.

n June 19, 2013, the Obama White House released a fact sheet on its updated nuclear weapons policy. The Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study (NPRIS)1 has been a long time in coming. Not surprisingly, the NPRIS contends that the United States can safely reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third below the current levels. Further, the NPRIS states that the U.S. may do this unilaterally, but prefers to reduce through a negotiated agreement with Russia. Current levels, which were set by the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), are already controversially low.2 The report provides evidence that President Barack Obama rst chose the reduced numbers in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and then used the NPRIS to justify these numbers, instead of assessing U.S. requirements for deterrence rst and then choosing

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg2826 Produced by the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

ISSUE BRIEF
P
resident Obama recently released his Climate Action Plan, which is a continuation of the costly, ineffective policies from his rst four years in office: Solyndra-style loan guarantees, nice-sounding but too expensive efficiency mandates, and his war on coal. It is this war on coal that would prove the most costly, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and $1.47 trillion of lost national income by 2030. Bankrupting Coal Hurts American Families. When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama pushed his cap-and-trade plan in 2008, he said that if someone wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. Its just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.1 Congress rejected his and other cap-and-trade plans, but in his recent speech on climate change, President Obama vowed to go around Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In case anyone thinks the Administration has since backed off from the anti-coal agenda, Obama climate advisor Daniel Schrag just this week said that a war on coal is exactly whats needed.2 In a speech on June 25, President Obama called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

No. 3978 | JUnE 27, 2013

Cost of a Climate Policy: The Economic Impact of Obamas Climate Action Plan
David W. Kreutzer, PhD, Nicolas D. Loris, and Kevin D. Dayaratna

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/ib3978 Produced by the Center for Data Analysis The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants, which would adversely affect coalred plants the most. These regulations are part of a broader effort from the President to signicantly reduce coal as an affordable, reliable energy source the effect of which is to drive up prices for American families and businesses. The Heritage Foundation modeled the effects of signicantly reducing coalred plants in America and found devastating economic effects. Regulations Pile On. With 497 billion tons of recoverable coal in the United Statesenough to provide electricity for 500 years at current consumption rates3coal has the potential to be an important resource long into the future. The EPAs constant attacks on coal threaten to close off access to this dependable energy source. In March 2012, the EPA proposed a rule that would prohibit new power plants from emitting more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity generated. Without the addition of carbon capture and sequestration, a prohibitively costly and technologically challenging requirement,4 the regulation would effectively ban the construction of new coal-red plants.5 Whether the nal rule reects the proposed rule remains to be seen. The Presidents recent announcement also threatens existing plants and would adversely affect the more than 1,100 coal-red generators at nearly 600 plant locations that generate 40 percent of Americas affordable, reliable energy.6 Last year, the EPA nalized new mercury and air toxics standards that will force utilities to use maximum achievable control technology standards to reduce mercury emissions and other hazardous air

BACKGROUNDER
No. 2824 | JULY 11, 2013

James Jay Carafano, PhD, and James Phillips

Egypt: A Way Forward After a Step Back

gypts army recently ousted President Mohamed Morsi, just as it removed Hosni Mubarak in 2011, to prevent growing civil disorder from undermining the power of the state and its own privileges within the state. The intervention was widely applauded by opposition political parties and the overwhelming majority of the millions of protesters who demanded that Morsi step down. By taking steps to preserve public order, the military could help to salvage Egypts chances of making the difficult transition to a stable democracy. Clearly, Egypt was headed for a civil war as a result of a surging rebellion against Morsis increasingly authoritarian rule. To salvage the increasingly difficult situation in Egypt, the United States should press the Egyptian military to lay the groundwork for a return to civilian rule as soon as possible, attach tighter strings to U.S. aid, and recalibrate the U.S. aid program to focus on ghting terrorism and preventing food shortagesthe chief threats to Egypts future. President Mohamed Morsi was his own worst enemy. He ruled in a secretive, authoritarian, and exclusionary manner that derailed Egypts democratic experiment and alienated far too many Egyptians, even some of his former supporters. During his year in office, he focused more on maximizing his own power and that of the Muslim Brotherhood than on addressing Egypts worsening economic, social, and political problems. When challenged, he arrogantly ignored, marginalized, and demonized

Key Points

Egypts army was justified in ousting President Mohamed Morsi, whose increasingly authoritarian rule was leading Egypt into a civil war. The army, however, is sitting on a volcano and knows it. The U.S. must recognize that Egypt is much closer to becoming a failed state or economic basket case than it is to becoming a genuine democracy. To salvage the increasingly difficult situation in Egypt, the United States should press the Egyptian military to lay the groundwork for a return to civilian rule as soon as possible. Washington should attach tighter strings to U.S. aid and recalibrate the aid program to focus on fighting terrorism and preventing food shortagesthe chief threats to Egypts future. No amount of aid from Washington can resolve Egypts deep economic problems, but the U.S. can encourage Cairo to undertake free-market economic reforms to rejuvenate its economy.

Morsis Threat to Democracy

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg2824 Produced by the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

BACKGROUNDER
No. 2821 | JULY 11, 2013

Winning Without Fighting: The Chinese Psychological Warfare Challenge

Dean Cheng
Abstract

Beijing hopes to win future conicts without ring a shot. How? By using psychological warfare to manipulate both a nations leaders and its populaceaffecting the thought processes and cognitive frameworks of allies and opponents alike. Indeed, the PRCs psychological warfare operations are already underway despite the fact that there is no active conict. It is therefore essential that the United States counter such psychological operations now while preparing to use its own arsenal of political warfare weapons should a conict ever arise.

Key Points

Over the past decade, the Peoples Republic of China has exhibited growing interest in waging asymmetrical warfare. To this end, the PRC released political work regulations for the Peoples Liberation Army addressing the importance of waging the three warfares: public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. The three warfares represent the PRCs commitment to expanding potential areas of conflict from the purely military (i.e., involving the direct or indirect use of military forces) to the more political. Such expansion will be supported by manipulation of an enemys leadership, including through intimidation and coercion, alienation, and deception. To avoid being psychologically outmaneuvered by a PRC intent on winning without firing a shot, the U.S. must strengthen its own psychological warfare capabilities, including strategic communications, public diplomacy, and media outreach capabilities, as well as dedicated psychological operations units.

ne of the elements distinguishing the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) from many of its counterparts is its continued role as a Party army. The PLA is, rst and foremost, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This distinction both obligates the PLA to help maintain the CCPs grip on power and gives it an additional set of tools with which to defend the CCP and the Chinese state. At the moment, the PLA is not only planning for operations on the physical battleeld; it is also preparing to conduct political warfare, including what is termed the three warfares: public opinion warfare, legal warfare, and psychological warfare. Psychological warfare is in some ways the most far-reaching of the three warfares. It involves the application of specialized information and media in accordance with a strategic goal and in support of political and military objectives.1 Such efforts are aimed at a variety of potential audiences and usually involve operational missions against an opponents psychology and cognitive capacities.

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg2821 Produced by the Asian Studies Center The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

BACKGROUNDER
No. 2824 | JULY 11, 2013

James Jay Carafano, PhD, and James Phillips

Egypt: A Way Forward After a Step Back

gypts army recently ousted President Mohamed Morsi, just as it removed Hosni Mubarak in 2011, to prevent growing civil disorder from undermining the power of the state and its own privileges within the state. The intervention was widely applauded by opposition political parties and the overwhelming majority of the millions of protesters who demanded that Morsi step down. By taking steps to preserve public order, the military could help to salvage Egypts chances of making the difficult transition to a stable democracy. Clearly, Egypt was headed for a civil war as a result of a surging rebellion against Morsis increasingly authoritarian rule. To salvage the increasingly difficult situation in Egypt, the United States should press the Egyptian military to lay the groundwork for a return to civilian rule as soon as possible, attach tighter strings to U.S. aid, and recalibrate the U.S. aid program to focus on ghting terrorism and preventing food shortagesthe chief threats to Egypts future. President Mohamed Morsi was his own worst enemy. He ruled in a secretive, authoritarian, and exclusionary manner that derailed Egypts democratic experiment and alienated far too many Egyptians, even some of his former supporters. During his year in office, he focused more on maximizing his own power and that of the Muslim Brotherhood than on addressing Egypts worsening economic, social, and political problems. When challenged, he arrogantly ignored, marginalized, and demonized

Key Points

Egypts army was justified in ousting President Mohamed Morsi, whose increasingly authoritarian rule was leading Egypt into a civil war. The army, however, is sitting on a volcano and knows it. The U.S. must recognize that Egypt is much closer to becoming a failed state or economic basket case than it is to becoming a genuine democracy. To salvage the increasingly difficult situation in Egypt, the United States should press the Egyptian military to lay the groundwork for a return to civilian rule as soon as possible. Washington should attach tighter strings to U.S. aid and recalibrate the aid program to focus on fighting terrorism and preventing food shortagesthe chief threats to Egypts future. No amount of aid from Washington can resolve Egypts deep economic problems, but the U.S. can encourage Cairo to undertake free-market economic reforms to rejuvenate its economy.

Morsis Threat to Democracy

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg2824 Produced by the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2824 JULY 11, 2013

opposition political parties, which he linked to foreign conspiracies. Under these conditions, Egypts army justiably intervened to restore order in support of the majority of Egyptians who were rebelling against an Islamist authoritarian regime. On July 3, Egyptian Defense Minister General Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi announced that Morsi, who had failed to meet the demands of the people, was relieved of his duties and that the Islamist-written constitution was suspended. Unlike Gamal Abdel Nassers coup in 1952 or the 2011 coup that brought down Hosni Mubarak, this time the military sought the endorsement of religious leaders, political leaders, and youth activists, many of whom shared the stage when General el-Sissi announced Morsis ouster in a televised statement.

During his year in office, Mohamed Morsi focused more on maximizing his own power and that of the Muslim Brotherhood than on addressing Egypts worsening economic, social, and political problems.
The next day, the military authorities announced that Adly Mansour, chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court, had been sworn in as interim president. Mansour is a little-known but respected low-key technocrat. As a judge, he could be well suited to steering the writing of a new constitution to replace the Islamist document that Morsi had rammed through in December. mr. Mansour pledged to continue the democratic reforms of the 2011 revolution so that we stop producing tyrants and said that new elections were the only way forward, although he gave no indication of when they would be held. President Mansour initially chose former opposition leader Mohamed el-Baradei as prime minister of the interim government on July 6, but this appointment was later rescinded under pressure from the Nour Party, one of the few Islamist groups that supported the coup. Baradei, a secular liberal who led the National Salvation Front, a coalition of
1.

leftist and liberal parties, frequently clashed with the United States over the Iran nuclear issue when he led the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is expected that President Mansour will soon announce the formation of a new government with a cabinet composed of technocrats and caretakers. Morsi has been detained at an undisclosed location. The authorities have sought to arrest more than 200 top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations on charges of inciting their followers to kill anti-Morsi demonstrators, but Islamist leaders have vowed not to give up without a ght. Mohammed Badie, the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has called for continued protests until Morsi is reinstated as president. Speaking at Cairos Rabaa Mosque during a demonstration on Rejection Friday, Badie warned, We are all willing to sacrice our necks and our souls for him.1 Tens of thousands of Morsi supporters poured out of mosques on Friday to protest Morsis ouster. ProMorsi demonstrations were quickly countered by anti-Morsi protests in a highly charged atmosphere that degenerated into widespread clashes, leaving at least 36 dead and more than 1,000 injured. On Monday, at least 51 of Morsis supporters were killed when troops responded to an attack on the Republican Guard headquarters where Morsi was last seen before his ouster. Egypts mushrooming political violence will be hard to control. Even in the unlikely event that the Muslim Brotherhood reins in its members as part of some deal to allow it to compete in future elections, more radical Islamists are sure to push back violently. Islamist militants in the northern Sinai, a hotbed of Islamist extremism, launched coordinated attacks against police facilities and an airport at El Arish, the provincial capital. Ansar al-Sharia in Egypt (Supporters of Islamic Law), a new Islamist group, announced its formation on an online forum for militants in the Sinai region and proclaimed that it will gather arms and train recruits for a jihad against Egypts new government. Similar organizations in Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia have served as front groups for attracting recruits to al-Qaedalike terrorist organizations.

Matt Bradley, Tamer El-Ghobashy, and Reem Abdellatif, Post-Coup Violence Spreads in Egypt, The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2013, http:/ / online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323899704578587131736732940.html (accessed July 8, 2013). 2

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2824 JULY 11, 2013

Islamist militants will likely soon expand their attacks beyond the Sinai region to include army, police, and government facilities; anti-Morsi political groups; symbols of the anti-Morsi revolution such as Tahrir Square; and symbols of foreign conspiracies such as the U.S. embassy, American companies, and other Western companies. Egypts Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of Egypts more than 80 million people, will likely become even more of a lightning rod for terrorist attacks. Islamists charge that Egypts ancient Christian community was complicit in inciting protests to bring down Morsi. There will likely be a surge in anti-Christian attacks, particularly in southern Egypt, a focal point for sectarian violence. The splintered Islamist movement is by no means unied in support of Morsi. The Nour Party, a Salast movement that favors the immediate imposition of Sharia law and resented Morsis high-handed efforts to monopolize political power, joined non-Islamist opposition parties in pushing for early elections. Other Islamists will likely increasingly criticize and ostracize the Nour leaders, who supported the military intervention. An outburst of violence by Islamist extremists could open a dangerous new chapter in Egypts unnished revolution. Left unchecked, it could devolve into an even bloodier version of Algerias civil war, which has consumed more than 100,000 lives since the Algerian Army stepped in to avert an Islamist election victory in 1991. Egypts army is sitting on a volcano and knows it. Egypt has fallen into dire economic straits, and political stability will likely be elusive until the countrys worsening economic situation is reversed. Nearly one-quarter of Egypts workers are unemployed, and the gure is much higher for young men, who form the shock troops for street protests. Egypts economic woes have created a huge reservoir of unemployed youth who are vulnerable to the siren call of radical ideologies, particularly Islamist extremism. The political turmoil and rising crime rates of the past two years have severely hurt tourism, which formerly generated the bulk of Egypts foreign currency earnings and provided jobs to about one of every seven workers. Morsi further sabotaged the tourism industry by appointing as governor of Luxor

Province a member of the Islamist terrorist group that massacred 62 tourists in Luxor in 1997not exactly a reassuring signal for nervous tourists. Islamist extremists will likely target tourists once again to undermine the new government.

The army cannot stabilize Egypt without resolving Egypts worsening economic problems, which will require considerable American and international support.
Egypt is imploding in a bitter political struggle fought amid economic collapse, social turmoil, surging crime rates, widespread unemployment, falling standards of living, and rising sectarian tensions. The imminent bankruptcy of Egypts state-dominated economy could quickly lead to catastrophic food shortages, bread riots, labor strikes, and growing political polarization. Foreign currency reserves are nearly exhausted, which will make it difficult to pay for wheat imports, which provide nearly half of Egypts food consumption. The army needs to put Egypts house in order quickly and then get out of the way. It inevitably will lose popular support the longer it rules, as it did between Mubaraks fall in February 2011 and Morsis purge of top army leaders in August 2012. The army can only do so much to repair Egypts dysfunctional political system. Moreover, it cannot stabilize Egypt without resolving Egypts worsening economic problems, which will require considerable American and international support.

Sitting on a Volcano

Egypt, the largest Arab country, is a bellwether for the Arab Middle East. The United States has a national interest in stabilizing Egypt, preventing the rise of an Islamist totalitarian state, and preventing the eruption of a full-blown civil war on the scale of Algerias in the heart of the Arab world. Washington also has a humanitarian interest in preventing food shortages if Egypts social fabric continues to unravel. The Obama Administration has been asleep at the switch for much of the past two years. It eagerly
3

U.S. Help Needed in the Struggle for Freedom

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2821 JULY 11, 2013

very perceptions that inform decision making, from the context to the biases. Successful psychological operations will therefore have repercussions at every level of operations, inuencing the course of the conict. To be effective, however, psychological warfare operations cannot be limited to wartime. Instead, peacetime psychological operations are necessary, both to understand an opponent better and to lay the groundwork for effective wartime operations.

PLA writings emphasize that modern information technology blurs the lines between peacetime and wartime, between military and civilian, and among strategy, operations, and tactics.
Peacetime applications of psychological warfare techniques involve inuencing and altering an opponents unconscious, implicit views in order to make that opponent more susceptible to coercion. By employing various forms of strategic communications, including diplomatic efforts, one can foster a positive national image and increase foreign sympathy and support for ones own policies and goals. At the same time, such techniques attempt to isolate opponents, undermining their positions, portraying them as fostering ill intentions, and forcing them to react to a variety of charges so that their energy is dispersed. In addition, employing all the tools of communications, including various forms of media, emphasizes ones own strengths as well as a willingness to employ that strength to deter and coerce opponents more effectively. All the while, one must be working to counter opponents efforts to foster their own image of strength and unity. It is also likely that an opponent will attempt to demoralize ones populace and that appropriate defensive measures will have to be taken. In wartime, psychological operations shift emphasis towards more specically military targets and goals. The primary objective of such efforts is to generate confusion, doubt, anxiety, fear, terror,

regret, and exhaustion in an opponent, especially among senior military and civilian leaders. Ideally, such a campaign will induce neglect and maximize the chances of an opponent making mistakes. Wartime psychological warfare operations also aim to generate a sense of uncertainty and indecisiveness at all levels, thereby degrading opposition decision-making processes. The ability to interfere with an opponents information systems, coupled with efforts to inuence decision makers, can create a strong psychological impact. Another facet of wartime psychological operations is the sowing of discord and a sense of hopelessness in the enemy. Not only will this help generate war-weariness among enemy forces and populations and discourage resistance, but once the conict is concluded, such operations may facilitate peace negotiations and induce more concessions. When one defeats the enemy, it is not solely by killing the enemy, or winning a piece of ground, but is mainly in terms of cowing the enemys heart.6 In order to undermine the opponents morale, one must emphasize information favorable to oneself through various forms of media as well as through third parties, friendly elements in the opponents society, and similar outlets. Finally, offensive psychological warfare operations must be complemented by defensive measures, since an opponent will also be trying to undermine ones own forces, population, and leaders. One must therefore attempt to solidify popular support for the conict, highlight ones successes and the enemys failures, and instill condence and support for the Party and the state. Such defensive measures require tight control of information ows in ones own society and the insulation of ones decision-makers and decision-making processes from enemy information warfare efforts. This need for control explains Beijings efforts to limit cyber access to the larger population, including the Great Firewall of China.

Chinese Concept of Psychological Warfare Tasks

For the PLA, psychological warfare is the resposibility of the General Political Department (GPD), working in coordination with the rest of the PLA. The GPD not only ensures political orthodoxy

6. Guo, Psychological Warfare Knowledge, p. 14. 3

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2824 JULY 11, 2013

Islamist militants will likely soon expand their attacks beyond the Sinai region to include army, police, and government facilities; anti-Morsi political groups; symbols of the anti-Morsi revolution such as Tahrir Square; and symbols of foreign conspiracies such as the U.S. embassy, American companies, and other Western companies. Egypts Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of Egypts more than 80 million people, will likely become even more of a lightning rod for terrorist attacks. Islamists charge that Egypts ancient Christian community was complicit in inciting protests to bring down Morsi. There will likely be a surge in anti-Christian attacks, particularly in southern Egypt, a focal point for sectarian violence. The splintered Islamist movement is by no means unied in support of Morsi. The Nour Party, a Salast movement that favors the immediate imposition of Sharia law and resented Morsis high-handed efforts to monopolize political power, joined non-Islamist opposition parties in pushing for early elections. Other Islamists will likely increasingly criticize and ostracize the Nour leaders, who supported the military intervention. An outburst of violence by Islamist extremists could open a dangerous new chapter in Egypts unnished revolution. Left unchecked, it could devolve into an even bloodier version of Algerias civil war, which has consumed more than 100,000 lives since the Algerian Army stepped in to avert an Islamist election victory in 1991. Egypts army is sitting on a volcano and knows it. Egypt has fallen into dire economic straits, and political stability will likely be elusive until the countrys worsening economic situation is reversed. Nearly one-quarter of Egypts workers are unemployed, and the gure is much higher for young men, who form the shock troops for street protests. Egypts economic woes have created a huge reservoir of unemployed youth who are vulnerable to the siren call of radical ideologies, particularly Islamist extremism. The political turmoil and rising crime rates of the past two years have severely hurt tourism, which formerly generated the bulk of Egypts foreign currency earnings and provided jobs to about one of every seven workers. Morsi further sabotaged the tourism industry by appointing as governor of Luxor

Province a member of the Islamist terrorist group that massacred 62 tourists in Luxor in 1997not exactly a reassuring signal for nervous tourists. Islamist extremists will likely target tourists once again to undermine the new government.

The army cannot stabilize Egypt without resolving Egypts worsening economic problems, which will require considerable American and international support.
Egypt is imploding in a bitter political struggle fought amid economic collapse, social turmoil, surging crime rates, widespread unemployment, falling standards of living, and rising sectarian tensions. The imminent bankruptcy of Egypts state-dominated economy could quickly lead to catastrophic food shortages, bread riots, labor strikes, and growing political polarization. Foreign currency reserves are nearly exhausted, which will make it difficult to pay for wheat imports, which provide nearly half of Egypts food consumption. The army needs to put Egypts house in order quickly and then get out of the way. It inevitably will lose popular support the longer it rules, as it did between Mubaraks fall in February 2011 and Morsis purge of top army leaders in August 2012. The army can only do so much to repair Egypts dysfunctional political system. Moreover, it cannot stabilize Egypt without resolving Egypts worsening economic problems, which will require considerable American and international support.

Sitting on a Volcano

Egypt, the largest Arab country, is a bellwether for the Arab Middle East. The United States has a national interest in stabilizing Egypt, preventing the rise of an Islamist totalitarian state, and preventing the eruption of a full-blown civil war on the scale of Algerias in the heart of the Arab world. Washington also has a humanitarian interest in preventing food shortages if Egypts social fabric continues to unravel. The Obama Administration has been asleep at the switch for much of the past two years. It eagerly
3

U.S. Help Needed in the Struggle for Freedom

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2824 JULY 11, 2013

embraced Morsis Muslim Brotherhooddominated government and was surprised that Egypts people so quickly became violently opposed to Islamist rule. The Administration gambled that the practical responsibilities of governing would dilute the hostile anti-Western ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet once in office, Morsi relentlessly expanded his own power in a winner-take-all manner while neglecting Egypts festering economic problems. The Obama Administrations enthusiasm for the Muslim Brotherhood led it to turn a blind eye to Morsis power grabs, the rising persecution of Egypts Coptic Christian minority, the crackdown on pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that the Mubarak regime formerly tolerated, and the restrictions that the Morsi government placed on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. The Obama Administration failed to publicly criticize Morsis excesses, power grabs, and abuses. This led Egypts secular and liberal opposition to turn to Egypts army in despair, angry that the Obama Administration uncritically supported the Morsi regime. Many protesters demonstrating against Morsi before the coup also carried signs protesting President Obamas support for the Morsi regime. Morsi, for his part, felt no need to compromise with the opposition or temper his Islamist ambitions because the Administration was reluctant to use the leverage afforded by $1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt. Secular, democratic, and liberal Egyptians opposed to an Islamist takeover should be natural allies of the U.S., not leading a backlash against American policy. The fact that Egyptians resent the Obama Administrations courting of the Muslim Brotherhood should be a wake-up call for the White House. It is a sad sign that U.S. policy toward Egypt has gone off the rails. Egyptian advocates of freedom should know that Americans support their efforts and do not side with an Islamist authoritarian leader who is hostile to American values and policies. The United States should support freedom in Egypt to advance its own interests as well as those of the Egyptian people. The interim government established by the army has a better chance of laying the groundwork for a democratic transition than did Morsis regime, which was headed for dictatorship.

Military coups have advanced the prospects for democracy at least two times in the past: Portugal in 1974, and Egypt in 2011. It remains to be seen whether Egypts latest coup will succeed in salvaging Egypts dim democratic prospects. However, General el-Sissi reportedly was a student at the U.S. Army War College in 2006, in which case he may have absorbed the professional standards and nonpartisan apolitical tradition of the U.S. Army. In any event, Egypts military leaders are much more likely than Morsis cronies to advance freedom in Egypt, support economic reforms to revive the economy, and play a stabilizing role in the volatile Middle East.

What the U.S. Should Do

In addressing Egypts deepening crisis, the United States should:

Press Egypts army to hold elections and step aside as soon as possible. General el-Sissis road map for a democratic transition included no dates. President Mansour has laid out a vague timetable for a constitutional referendum in four and a half months and parliamentary elections in six months. Washington should urge the interim government to adhere to this timetable. It should also nd an inclusive way of writing a new constitution to establish the rules of the political competition before elections. The lack of a shared understanding of the rules of the game enabled Morsi to stage a power grab. The Administration has called for a transparent and inclusive political transition process, but the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties should be allowed to participate only if they publicly choose a path of nonviolence. Attach tight strings to any U.S. aid. The Obama Administration has stopped short of calling the armys intervention a coup to avoid triggering an aid cutoff. Section 7008 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012, as contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, bars any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup dtat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup dtat or decree

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2821 JULY 11, 2013

very perceptions that inform decision making, from the context to the biases. Successful psychological operations will therefore have repercussions at every level of operations, inuencing the course of the conict. To be effective, however, psychological warfare operations cannot be limited to wartime. Instead, peacetime psychological operations are necessary, both to understand an opponent better and to lay the groundwork for effective wartime operations.

PLA writings emphasize that modern information technology blurs the lines between peacetime and wartime, between military and civilian, and among strategy, operations, and tactics.
Peacetime applications of psychological warfare techniques involve inuencing and altering an opponents unconscious, implicit views in order to make that opponent more susceptible to coercion. By employing various forms of strategic communications, including diplomatic efforts, one can foster a positive national image and increase foreign sympathy and support for ones own policies and goals. At the same time, such techniques attempt to isolate opponents, undermining their positions, portraying them as fostering ill intentions, and forcing them to react to a variety of charges so that their energy is dispersed. In addition, employing all the tools of communications, including various forms of media, emphasizes ones own strengths as well as a willingness to employ that strength to deter and coerce opponents more effectively. All the while, one must be working to counter opponents efforts to foster their own image of strength and unity. It is also likely that an opponent will attempt to demoralize ones populace and that appropriate defensive measures will have to be taken. In wartime, psychological operations shift emphasis towards more specically military targets and goals. The primary objective of such efforts is to generate confusion, doubt, anxiety, fear, terror,

regret, and exhaustion in an opponent, especially among senior military and civilian leaders. Ideally, such a campaign will induce neglect and maximize the chances of an opponent making mistakes. Wartime psychological warfare operations also aim to generate a sense of uncertainty and indecisiveness at all levels, thereby degrading opposition decision-making processes. The ability to interfere with an opponents information systems, coupled with efforts to inuence decision makers, can create a strong psychological impact. Another facet of wartime psychological operations is the sowing of discord and a sense of hopelessness in the enemy. Not only will this help generate war-weariness among enemy forces and populations and discourage resistance, but once the conict is concluded, such operations may facilitate peace negotiations and induce more concessions. When one defeats the enemy, it is not solely by killing the enemy, or winning a piece of ground, but is mainly in terms of cowing the enemys heart.6 In order to undermine the opponents morale, one must emphasize information favorable to oneself through various forms of media as well as through third parties, friendly elements in the opponents society, and similar outlets. Finally, offensive psychological warfare operations must be complemented by defensive measures, since an opponent will also be trying to undermine ones own forces, population, and leaders. One must therefore attempt to solidify popular support for the conict, highlight ones successes and the enemys failures, and instill condence and support for the Party and the state. Such defensive measures require tight control of information ows in ones own society and the insulation of ones decision-makers and decision-making processes from enemy information warfare efforts. This need for control explains Beijings efforts to limit cyber access to the larger population, including the Great Firewall of China.

Chinese Concept of Psychological Warfare Tasks

For the PLA, psychological warfare is the resposibility of the General Political Department (GPD), working in coordination with the rest of the PLA. The GPD not only ensures political orthodoxy

6. Guo, Psychological Warfare Knowledge, p. 14. 3

ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 3978 JUnE 27, 2013

pollutants. By the agencys own admission, the rule will cost $10 billion by 2015 but have only $6 million in purported benets from mercury reductions.7 In addition, the EPA is also regulating coal combustion residues and cooling water intake structures and is considering more stringent smog standards, all of which make the use of coal power more expensive. Most recently, the Supreme Court granted the EPAs request to review its cross-state air pollution rule, which would compel companies to retire three to seven gigawatts of electricity generation and retrot up to 576 plants.8 In the absence of these new regulations, U.S. air quality has improved signicantly over the past several decades. Emission of toxic pollutants has dropped as much as 96 percent since 1980.9 The attack on coal reaches well beyond power plant construction and operation. Although not a new problem, regulations from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Mine Safety and Health Administration make building new coal mining operations or expanding existing operations increasingly difficult.10 Coal mining operations are subject to 10 federal environmental laws as well as state requirements and regulations. Climate Policy and Coal. While it may not be clear exactly which policies will be used, it seems clear that zeroing-out coal-red electric power plants is a goal of this Administrations environmental team.

This paper will analyze the economic impact of setting such a target. We look at the rst 16 years of a 20-year phase-out of coal power: 20152030. The analysis shows signicant economic losses extend beyond the obvious areas of coal mining and power generation. In particular, we nd that by 2030:

Employment falls by more than 500,000 jobs; Manufacturing loses over 280,000 jobs; A family of fours annual income drops more than $1,000 per year, and its total income drops by $16,500 over the period of analysis; Aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) decreases by $1.47 trillion; Electricity prices rise by 20 percent; Coal-mining jobs drop 43 percent; and Natural gas prices rise 42 percent.

The Energy Markets Respond. The analysis was carried out using the Heritage Energy Model (HEM).11 As coal-red power generation is ratcheted

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Senator Barack Obama (DIL), interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, January 17, 2008, http:/ /www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw (accessed June 26, 2013). Aaron Blake, Obama Science Adviser Calls for War on Coal, The Washington Post, June 25, 2013, http:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ post-politics/wp/2013/06/25/obama-science-adviser-calls-for-war-on-coal/ (accessed June 26, 2013). Institute for Energy Research, North American Energy Inventory, December 2011, http:/ /www.energyforamerica.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/Energy-InventoryFINAL.pdf (accessed June 24, 2013). To date, no one has successfully operated a utility-scale carbon-capture power plant. Perhaps even more problematic is how to dispose of the 1520 super tankers worth of liquid carbon dioxide that widespread carbon capture would create. Under the proposed rule, those plants already in the permitting process would not be included. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, What Is the Role of Coal in the United States? July 18, 2012, http:/ /www.eia. gov/energy_in_brief/article/role_coal_us.cfm (accessed June 24, 2013). Anne E. Smith, Technical Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Supporting EPAs Proposed Rule for Utility MACT and Revised NSPS (76 FR 24976), NERA Economic Consulting, August 3, 2011, http:/ /www.nera.com/nera-les/PUB_Smith_EPA_report_0811.pdf (accessed June 24, 2013). North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impact of Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations, October 2010, http://www.nerc.com/les/EPA_Scenario_Final_v2.pdf (accessed June 24, 2013). Steven F. Hayward, 2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends, American Enterprise Institute, April 2011, p. 34, http:/ /www.aei.org/ les/2011/04/20/Hayward-almanac2011.pdf (accessed June 25, 2013).

8. 9.

10. Nicolas D. Loris, The Assault on Coal and the American Consumer, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2709, July 23, 2012, http:/ /www. heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-assault-on-coal-and-american-consumers. 11. See the appendix for a description of the HEM and the methodology used in this paper. 2

ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 3978 JUnE 27, 2013

Appendix: Methodology
Overview of Heritage Energy Model. This analysis uses the Heritage Energy Model (HEM), a derivative of the National Energy Model System (NEMS).15 NEMS is used by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy as well as various nongovernmental organizations for a variety of purposes, including forecasting the effects of energy policy changes on a plethora of leading economic indicators. The methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this report are entirely the work of statisticians and economists at The Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis and have not been endorsed by and do not necessarily reect the views of the developers of NEMS. HEM is based on well-established economic theory as well as historical data and contains a variety of modules that interact with each other for longterm forecasting. In particular, HEM focuses on the interactions among (1) the supply, conversion, and demand of energy in its various forms; (2) American energy and the overall American economy; (3) the American energy market and the world petroleum market; and (4) current production and consumption decisions as well as expectations about the future.16 These modules include:

An Electricity Market Module, A Petroleum Market Module, An Oil and Gas Supply Module, A Renewable Fuels Module, An International Energy Activity Module, and A Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module.

A Macroeconomic Activity Module,17 A Transportation Demand Module, A Residential Demand Module, An Industrial Demand Module, A Commercial Demand Module, A Coal Market Module,

HEM is identical to NEMS with the exception of the Commercial Demand Module. Unlike NEMS, HEMs module does not make projections regarding commercial oor-space data of pertinent commercial buildings. Overarching the above modules is an Integrating Module that consistently cycles, iteratively executing and allowing the various modules to interact with each other. Unknown variables that are related (such as if they are a component of a particular module) are grouped together, and a pertinent subsystem of equations and inequalities corresponding to each group is solved via a variety of commonly used numerical analytic techniques, using approximate values for the other unknowns. Once these groups values are computed, the next group is solved similarly, and the process iterates. Convergence checks are performed for each price and quantity statistic to determine whether subsequent changes in that particular statistic fall within a given tolerance. After all group values for the current cycle are determined, the next cycle begins. For example, at cycle j, a variety of n pertinent statistics represented by the vector j j n (xj is obtained.18 HEM provides a num1 , x2 , ..., xn ) R ber of diagnostic measures, based on differences

15. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, http:/ /www.eia.gov/ oiaf/aeo/overview/pdf/0581(2009).pdf (accessed April 3, 2013). 16. Ibid., pp. 34. 17. HEMs Macroeconomic Activity Module makes use of the IHS Global Insight model, which is used by government agencies and Fortune 500 organizations to forecast the manifestations of economic events and policy changes on notable economic indicators. As with NEMS, the methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this report are entirely the work of CDA statisticians and economists and have not been endorsed by and do not necessarily reect the views of the owners of the IHS Global Insight model. 18. S. A. Gabriel, A. S. Kydes, and P. Whitman, The National Energy Modeling System: A Large-Scale Energy-Economic Equilibrium Model, Operations Research, Vol. 49 (2001), pp. 1425. 4

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2826 JULY 11, 2013

the numbers of nuclear weapons that would meet the requirements. President Obama indicated his thinking more than a year ago in a speech at Hankuk University in Seoul, South Korea: But even as we have more work to do, we can already say with condence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need.3 Since meeting deterrence and military requirements was clearly not foremost in President Obamas mind when he chose these numbers, what was? The overwhelming evidence suggests that he was focused on reaching his declared goal of zero U.S. nuclear weapons, which the fact sheet reafrms in its rst paragraph. Indeed, the true number he desires is zero, but even he recognizes that the American people will reject an attempt to go directly to zero nuclear weapons. Accordingly, the numbers recommended in the NPRIS were essentially chosen for aesthetic reasons. These numbers look about right as an intermediate step between what is permitted by New START after its execution and zero. This likelihood that President Obama is foremost concerned about reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in the pursuit of his aspiration for zero nuclear weapons is bolstered by a statement by the then-Commander of U.S. Strategic Command during President Obamas rst term. In July 2010, General Kevin Chilton testied about the proper relationship between the numbers and deterrence capabilities:
I do not agree that [the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal] is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. And I say this in light ofwhen we talk about the nondeployed portion of the arsenalit is sized to be able to allow us to hedge against both technical failures in the current deployed arsenal and any
1. 2. 3. 4.

geopolitical concerns that mightcause us to need more weapons deployed.4

His testimony sharply contrasts with the assertion in the NPRIS that U.S. nuclear weapons may now be reduced further.

The NPRIS

According to the fact sheet, the NPRIS:

Reaffirms the Presidents goal of achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Clearly, this has been and remains President Obamas highest priority in U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Commits to reducing the number of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons by up to onethird below New START levels. The second most important aspect of the NPRIS is the commitment to reduce the number of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons. The fact sheet states this determination was made after a comprehensive review of the requirements for nuclear forces. Yet as detailed in the next section of this paper, the preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that the scope of the reduction was chosen rst and the NPRIS was pursued to justify it. The fact sheet further states that the U.S. intends to seek the reductions in negotiations with Russia, but fails to indicate that an agreement with Russia is in any way necessary or that any agreement with Russia will be concluded as a treaty in accordance with the law.5 Asserts that the United States will maintain a credible nuclear deterrent, in contrast to the commitment to disarmament. Specically, it states the U.S. nuclear posture will remain

The White House, Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States, June 19, 2013, http:/ /www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employment-strategy-united-states (accessed June 19, 2013). Baker Spring, Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2466, September 16, 2010, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-aws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-x. Barack Obama, Remarks by President Obama at Hankuk University, The White House, March 26, 2012, http:/ /www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-hankuk-university (accessed May 29, 2012). General Kevin P. Chilton, testimony in The New START Treaty (Treaty Doc. 1115): Views from the Pentagon, video le, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 16, 2010, http:/ /www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/the-new-start-treaty-treaty-doc-111-5views-from-the-pentagon (accessed May 8, 2013). See 22 U.S. Code 2573. 2

5.

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2826 JULY 11, 2013

Defers the question of reducing the disparity between the U.S. and Russia in short-range nuclear weapons. The fact sheet states that NPRIS did not set out to address this matter, particularly in relation to such weapons deployed in Europe. Deferring this issue represents a presidential repudiation of his commitment to the Senate to address the matter, not just directly but in short order. States that the U.S. is focused on maintaining and improving strategic stability with both Russia and China. Presumably, this further codies the earlier stated policy that the U.S. must remain vulnerable to nuclear attacks by either Russia or China. Notes that the President has directed the DOD to begin updating and aligning its directives and contingency plans with the new guidance and to implement them over the course of the next year. The NPRIS is accompanied by a guidance document, in the form of a directive to the Department of Defense. The fact sheets states that the President has directed the Department of Defense to use the new guidance resulting from the NPRIS to begin updating and aligning its directives and contingency plans in order to implement this policy over the next year. This requirement is designed to force the Department of Defense, particularly U.S. Strategic Command, to redesign the U.S. nuclear posture in a years time. The accompanying DOD employment report acknowledges that the DOD has received this guidance document.8 For whatever reason, the President is in a rush.

recommendations, if followed, would result in a dangerously weak U.S. deterrence posture for both the U.S. and its allies. This is the inevitable result when arms control and disarmament goals, not strengthening the overall U.S. deterrent, drive a review of the U.S. nuclear force.

The most effective nuclear deterrent for the U.S. against a repressive regime would be a counterforce policy that targets the regimes internal security forces and strategic military forces.
The most signicant aws are: Flaw #1: An obscure targeting policy. The NPRIS states that U.S. policy is to narrow the requirements for its nuclear employment and targeting policy. However, the reduced number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons will drive the U.S. in the direction of countervalue targeting, targeting populations and economic centers. This is problematic because a countervalue targeting policy is not compatible with the values of the U.S. as a free country and therefore is not compatible with a credible deterrent.9 No U.S. President would choose to use nuclear weapons to cause widespread death and destruction in an enemy country in which the population is repressed and poses no signicant threat to the U.S. and its allies. Further, history suggests that foreign tyrannies do not value their people. Instead, they value the means of repressing their populations and of threatening free nations, including the U.S., that pose an ideological threat to their repressive regimes. Finally, because the U.S. was founded on the principle of liberty, it values the security and prosperity of its people. Thus, the most effective nuclear deterrent for the U.S. against a repressive regime would be a counterforce policy that targets the regimes internal security forces and strategic military forces, while protecting and defending the populations and economic capacity of the U.S. and its allies. Indeed, the

The evidence in the NPRIS fact sheet supporting the argument that the numbers were chosen for reasons of arms control and disarmament, not for deterrence and defense, follows from the wide variety of aws in the reports recommendations, which go beyond the numbers themselves. These

Evidence of Arms Control and Disarmament-Driven Numbers

8. 9.

Ibid., p. 1. Rebeccah Heinrichs and Baker Spring, Deterrence and Nuclear Targeting in the 21st Century, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2747, November 30, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/deterrence-and-nuclear-targeting-in-the-21st-century. 4

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2826 JULY 11, 2013

accompanying DOD report nds the argument in favor of countervalue targeting so weak that it categorically denies the guidance from the White House requiring that the DOD to pursue it.10 Accordingly, the problem with the NPRIS is that a counterforce employment and targeting policy requires a larger and more capable force than the one the NPRIS recommends. This contradiction exists between the White House guidance to the Department of Defense and the DOD nuclear employment report and within the DOD employment report. The repressive regimes that the U.S. needs to deter maintain multiple levers of internal repression and strategic military capabilities to threaten the nations of the free world. Consequently, they present larger numbers of targets, many of them hardened against attack with reinforced bunkers, than would be presented by population centers under a countervalue targeting policy. The problem becomes even more pronounced if the U.S. faces a coalition of strategic enemies made possible by proliferation. By way of reference, the numbers of deployed strategic nuclear warheads found necessary by the George W. Bush Administration to meet the requirement to defeat strategic attacks and deter them was between 1,700 and 2,200. The plan included targets that are hardened and deeply buried facilities, which are fairly described as classic counterforce targets. The NPRIS fact sheet says nothing about why it relies on the target sets that are shrinking enough to permit reducing the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by one-third from the 1,550 accountable warheads under New START, not to mention the 1,700 to 2,200 deemed necessary by the Bush Administration. Accordingly, dedicated advocates of lower numbers of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal than proposed by the Obama Administration have openly argued for a minimal deterrence nuclear posture based on countervalue targeting.11 These advocates understand that a countervalue targeting policy

would permit a signicantly smaller nuclear force, admittedly under the questionable assumption that such a targeting policy would present a strong deterrent posture toward current and future U.S. enemies, whereas the counterforce targeting policy identied in NPRIS must lead to relatively high numbers of nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration apparently has chosen to gloss over this apparent contradiction in the NPRIS. Indeed, the fact sheet fails to identify clearly the nature of the connection that the NPRIS makes between its suggested targets and its recommended number of weapons. Flaw #2: Insufficient survivability for the U.S. nuclear force. The reductions recommended by NPRIS would likely make the U.S. strategic nuclear force less survivable. The fact sheet asserts that a disarming strike against U.S. strategic nuclear forces is exceedingly remote. However, whether such a strike will remain exceedingly remote would depend on the future structure of the U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The NPRIS provides only vague overall numbers. For example, in a letter to Senator John McCain (RAZ) on November 14, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained how automatic spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 could affect the defense program.12 An attachment to his letter states that these cuts could eliminate the ICBM leg of the triad.

Secretary Panetta identied elimination of ICBMs as a plausible result of President Obamas defense budget policies.
Former Air Force Chief of Staff Larry Welch explained the link between preservation of the ICBM leg and survivability in a speech in Washington, D.C.,

10. U.S. Department of Defense, Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy, p. 4. 11. For example, see Hans M. Kristensen, Robert S. Norris, and Ivan Oelrich, From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council Occasional Paper No. 7, April 2009, http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/OccasionalPaper7.pdf (accessed June 18, 2012). 12. Leon Panetta, letter to Senator John McCain, in press release, Statement by Senators McCain and Graham on Secretary Panettas Letter Detailing Devastating Impact of Sequester, November 14, 2011, http:/ /www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice. PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a4074315-fd3e-2e65-2330-62b95da3b0e9 (accessed July 11, 2012). 5

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2826 JULY 11, 2013

Flaw #5: The fact sheet offers no commitment to modernize nuclear delivery systems. The U.S. needs to modernize the delivery systems for its nuclear forces for reasons that go beyond the need to replace the aging delivery systems. The U.S. needs new systems that can ensure the timely, highly precise delivery of weapons against time-sensitive targets, such as ICBMs mounted on mobile launchers. Speed and precision of the new delivery vehicles should be key considerations in the modernization effort. The NPRIS fact sheet does not mention these requirements. Flaw #6: The fact sheet mentions no recommendations for appropriate yields of the weapons in the arsenal. The yield of a specic nuclear weapon is critical to maximizing its deterrent effect under different circumstances. A key variable in addressing the yield question is the accuracy of the overall weapon system. Generally speaking, higher accuracy permits lower yields in a counterforce targeting plan. Maximizing the effectiveness of the deterrent is even more important than the question of the relationship between accuracy and yields. Higher yields do not always strengthen deterrence. For example, if a President nds the yield to be too high to permit its use under a given circumstance, it will detract from deterrence if a potential enemy calculates in advance that the President will recognize this problem. Disturbingly, the NPRIS fact sheet does not discuss the preferable yields for a full array of different weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In fact, it does not address the yield question whatsoever, and neither does the Department of Defense employment report. This suggests that they assume that the yields of the current array of weapons are appropriate in every instance and will remain so for the indenite future. This is a dangerous assumption. Flaw #7: Command and control problems are not seriously addressed. The overall capabilities of the nuclear command and control system are essential to determining the overall survivability of the force. However, improved command and control systems for nuclear weapons are about more than survivability. By outward appearances, both the NPRIS fact sheet and the DOD employment report fail to recognize the broader issues related to nuclear command and control. Speed and reliability of communications are key considerations for modernizing nuclear command

and control systems, particularly with ballistic missile submarines at sea. Further, the broader command and control structure should be integrated with the global reconnaissance strike system, which identies strategic targets and rapidly and precisely directs weapons against the target. Accordingly, nuclear delivery systems that can rapidly and precisely attack targets will be of little value if not supported by a command and control system that is integrated with the global reconnaissance strike system. According to the fact sheet, the NPRIS addresses neither issue.

De-alerting is an effective step for articially reducing the value of the U.S. nuclear force to the point that maintaining any such force can no longer be justied.
Flaw #8: The NPRIS defers consideration of the deterrence value of short-range weapons, particularly for extended deterrence. U.S. nuclear weapons deter strategic attacks not only against the U.S. itself, but also against U.S. allies around the world, which is called extended deterrence. The existing U.S. nuclear posture is considered weak by some allies and friends, who are less condent in U.S. assurances about and the commitment to their security. While U.S. strategic nuclear forces are essential to strengthening extended deterrence, they are not sufficient for this purpose by themselves. Forward basing short-range nuclear weapons to address strategic threats to U.S. allies is also essential because these forward-deployed nuclear forces are tangible means of bringing U.S. allies into the overall deterrence posture. Further, these forward-deployed weapons can ll in rungs in the escalation ladder, which if left out would result in a relatively weak deterrent. Finally, forward-deployed nuclear forces increase the exibility of the overall nuclear force and add to the military effectiveness of the broader nuclear force. Accordingly, in its 2009 report, the Strategic Posture Commission noted an emerging perception among some U.S. allies and friends that U.S. weakness in non-strategic nuclear weapons was undermining their condence in U.S. security assurances.
7

BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2826 JULY 11, 2013

Specically the report states, Some allies located near Russia believe that U.S. non-strategic forces in Europe are essential to prevent nuclear coercion by Moscow and that modernized U.S./NATO forces are essential for restoring a sense of balance in the face of Russias nuclear renewal.15 The report further stated, Overall equivalence is important to many U.S. allies in Europe. The United States should not cede to Russia a posture of superiority in the name of deemphasizing nuclear weapons in the U.S. military strategy.16

The Strategic Posture Commission noted an emerging perception among some U.S. allies and friends that U.S. weakness in non-strategic nuclear weapons was undermining their condence in U.S. security assurances.
At the moment, Russia has a multifold advantage over the U.S. in short-range nuclear forces. The President certied to the Senate during consideration of New START that he would address this matter and seek to reduce, if not eliminate, this disparity in short order. He has not done so, and the fact sheet acknowledges that the NPRIS did not address this matter in any substantive way. Flaw #9: The NPRIS fails to explain how U.S. nuclear forces will be integrated with defensive forces and conventional strike forces. In a proliferating world, the most powerful overall deterrent the U.S. can present would balance defensive forces and conventional strike forces with nuclear forces. This means all three types of forces must be integrated in order to reinforce each other. Specically, all three must work within the global reconnaissance strike system because it can provide vital supporting functions to each. For example, its early warning capabilities will provide not only added exibility to the nuclear and conventional strike forces, but also initial cueing and tracking to ballistic missile defense forces.

There is no evidence that NPRIS considered the synergistic effects of fully integrating defensive, conventional, and nuclear forces for strengthening deterrence. Indeed, the fact sheet indicates that the NPRIS sees U.S. defensive and conventional strike forces as replacements for, not complements to, the U.S. nuclear force in meeting deterrence needs. Flaw #10: The Obama Administration continues to walk away from its commitments to the Senate to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure. On this point, the fact sheet simply seeks to mislead the public. The President is failing to keep some of his commitments to the Senate to modernize U.S. weapons infrastructure, such as accelerating construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These commitments served as the political and legal foundation for the Senates consent to the ratication of New START and its permission to let the U.S. strategic nuclear force fall to the levels required by the treaty. Now, the Administration is asserting that the U.S. not only may safely reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal to New START levels, but to onethird below New START levels. Simply put, the facts indicate otherwise. Flaw #11: The NPRIS provides no assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the recommended nuclear force. The NPRIS, focused as it is on reducing the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons, can easily be interpreted to mean that the overall cost of U.S. nuclear forces will also come down. However, the Administration cannot honestly assert that the overall cost-effectiveness of the nuclear force will increase under the NPRIS. The NPRIS recommendations reduce the cost of the U.S. nuclear force and its supporting elements by reducing the size of the force, which will reduce the capability of the force. Needless to say, the Administration is nding it inconvenient to acknowledge that it is producing a less effective nuclear force and a less effective deterrence posture. The Administration is all too happy to switch the subject and assure the America people that they will live in a world free of nuclear weapons.

15. Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, Americas Strategic Posture (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2009), p. 20, http://media.usip.org/reports/strat_posture_report.pdf (accessed June 25, 2013). 16. Ibid., p. 21. 8