Obama hosts two-day summit on nuclear security

By the CNN Wire Staff

April 11, 2010 6:00 p.m. EDT

President Obama's nuclear strategy has been criticized by Republicans as too weak. STORY HIGHLIGHTS

y y y y

Summit is centerpiece of Obama objective to prevent spread of nuclear weapons Leaders from 46 countries are coming to Washington for the two-day summit Obama signed treaty with Russia last week to reduce nuclear stockpiles of both Obama holding meetings with some of the visiting heads of state starting Sunday

(CNN) -- President Obama hosts leaders from 46 countries for a two-day nuclear security summit starting Monday that will focus on how to better safeguard weapons materials, both old and new, to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. The gathering at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in the nation's capital is considered an unprecedented effort to rally global action on securing vulnerable nuclear materials. It also is the centerpiece of a major Obama objective aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technology. As the summit begins, the United States is negotiating with the four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions. "The central focus of this nuclear summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said Sunday, appearing with South African President Jacob Zuma in Washington. "This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come," Obama said. "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications -- economically, politically and from a security perspective -- would be devastating. We know that organizations like al Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and would have no compunction at using them." Obama signed a new treaty with Russia last week to reduce the nuclear stockpiles of both nations, and his administration issued a revised U.S. nuclear arms strategy intended to reinforce the nation's nuclear deterrent while isolating terrorists and rogue states that fail to comply with international regulations.

It all fits together as an ambitious effort to mobilize a unified global effort against nuclear proliferation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in interviews broadcast Sunday.

Video: Hillary Clinton on nuclear proliferation RELATED TOPICS

y y y y y

Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear Weapons Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Robert Gates

"We want to get the world's attention focused where we think it needs to be, with these continuing efforts by al Qaeda and others to get just enough nuclear material to cause terrible havoc, destruction, and loss of life somewhere in the world," Clinton told the ABC program "This Week." Of particular concern are older nuclear weapons and materials that aren't safeguarded as well as they should be, particularly in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, Clinton said on the NBC program "Meet the Press." It used to be considered a U.S.-Soviet issue, Clinton said, rather than the high international priority "we intend to make it in the coming week." "Unfortunately, we have a situation in which there is a lot of loose nuclear material around the world," Obama said Sunday. "And so the central focus of this summit is getting the international community on a path in which we are locking down that nuclear material in a very specific time frame, with a specific work plan." South Africa, he said, is a moral leader on the nuclear issue, since it began and then dismantled a nuclear program. The summit's goal is to get an agreement and working plan on how each of the participating countries will control nuclear materials or otherwise prevent their spread, Clinton said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced last week that nations participating in the summit would be Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Vietnam. In addition, the United Nations, the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency will be represented at the summit, Gibbs said. Obama also is holding bilateral meetings with some of the visiting heads of state, which started Sunday afternoon with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, followed by President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, South African President Jacob Zuma, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan and acting President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria.

Obama's nuclear strategy has been criticized by Republicans as too weak in the face of threats and defiance by Iran and North Korea. "While the treaty [with Russia] may be in the right direction and the nuclear summit that's coming to town may be an impressive group of people, the nuclear posture statement that the president put out is troublesome to me," Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. " I mean, it takes away the ambiguity about our use of nuclear power. Ambiguity in foreign policy is sometimes very useful." On Sunday, Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Obama administration "poses a threat to international peace" and is "wicked and untrustworthy." Khamenei made the remarks Sunday in a meeting with the Armed Forces chief of staff and other top military officials, according to IRNA. According to the news agency, Khamenei said Obama had recently threatened Iran with nuclear weapons and called for Iran's military to prepare itself. Khamenei apparently was referring to last week's announced shift in U.S. nuclear strategy, in which the administration said it would swear off developing new generations of nuclear weapons and would not use its existing arsenal to attack non-nuclear states that are in compliance with nonproliferation agreements. Gates made clear Sunday that the new policy left Iran vulnerable to a U.S. nuclear attack because Iran refuses to comply with nonproliferation agreements. "All options are on the table" regarding Iran and North Korea, which also defies international regulations, Gates said on the CBS program. Clinton defended the Obama administration's policy of seeking a unified international response to Iran's nuclear ambitions, including stronger U.N. sanctions. The policy, which broke with President George W. Bush's nonnegotiation stance, has exposed Iran's intransigence, Clinton said on the NBC program. Now, with the U.N. negotiations on tougher sanctions, "the Iranians have been beating down the doors of every country in the world to try to avoid" a new sanctions resolution, Clinton said. However, when asked whether Iran had the capability now to develop a nuclear weapon, Clinton avoided a direct answer, saying it was unclear. Gates had no hesitation, declaring immediately that "it's our judgment here they are not nuclear capable." "We're doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Gates said, adding that there probably would be another Security Council resolution with tougher sanctions on Iran. He called such a resolution important on its own and as a legal platform for others to take their own steps. "At the end of the day, Iran has to decide that not having nuclear weapons is a better defense strategy than having them," Gates said.

Obama's nuclear posture: Right for these times

By George Perkovich, Special to CNN
April 7, 2010 8:06 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

y y y y

George Perkovich says Obama's new position on nuclear weapons reflects new realities A core goal, he says, is to prevent proliferation to other states -- and to terrorists Some may not be satisfied with new position, but it is politically realistic, he says Perkovich: Obama's new nuclear policy shows he's serious about leading on nonproliferation RELATED TOPICS

y y y

Nuclear Proliferation Barack Obama Nuclear Weapons

Editor's note: George Perkovich is vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation, with a focus on South Asia and Iran. He is co-editor of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (Carnegie Endowment, 2009). Washington (CNN) -- America's new nuclear weapons posture, released yesterday by the Obama administration, gives much-needed momentum to the nuclear agenda President Obama set out in Prague last year. It is in the longterm interest of the United States to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons, the only things that can immediately threaten the very existence of the country. The new Nuclear Policy Review better reflects the realities of the world than previous ones and will help guide U.S. policy for the next five years. It also extends a process that started under the Bush administration --President George W. Bush also sought to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, though he didn't get credit for it. The United States has greater conventional, non-nuclear military capabilities than other powerful countries; its military understands that it is nearly impossible to imagine a circumstance -- other than a nuclear attack against the United States or one of its allies -- when the country would credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons. This policy reflects that recognition. And the military is confident that new nuclear arms are not necessary for America's nuclear deterrent. Counterview: It's folly not to update nuclear arsenal Obama's policy review demonstrates to the world the seriousness of America's commitment to the arms reduction and nonproliferation agenda, while being attuned to the political realities of Washington. This is the smartest approach Obama could take to reinforce his priorities in nuclear disarmament.

But the new policy review departs from previous strategies in several ways. Now, the stated core objective is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other states and to prevent their use by terrorists. While other administrations recognized this, it was not made part of U.S. nuclear policy: Nonproliferation and counterterrorism were left to other policy domains. The new strategy also says the goal of the United States is a world without nuclear weapons. But it also says that as long as the United States and its allies are faced with neighbors armed with nuclear arms, the United States will retain these weapons, and in a safe and reliable manner. The country is not going to get rid of its nuclear weapons alone. The United States will try to lead by example and, as much as possible, reduce reliance on nuclear weapons in U.S. security, but also encourage and put pressure on others to do the same. This strategy will antagonize those on the far right, where there is an unreasonable view of the utility of nuclear weapons. On the left, some may feel the president didn't go far enough. They were hoping the posture would declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter the use of those weapons by others. But it's important to recognize that this is the best policy that does not limit the administration's broader nuclear disarmament goals. President Obama is a realist and knows that he needs 67 votes in the Senate to ratify the new START treaty with Russia. Read more about new restrictions on nuclear weapons use While the United States could outline a strategy that would be applauded by disarmament advocates, it would reduce the chance of actually ratifying a real treaty to reduce nuclear weapons in the Senate. Obama realizes he can give plenty of Prague speeches, but he's not going to change the world with speeches. So the administration decided to have a posture review that will get votes in the Senate to implement reductions that can lead to a future that disarmament advocates want even if the language may disappoint them now. The review, combined with the new START treaty that will be signed on Thursday and the nuclear security summit in Washington on April 12-13, shows the United States means business ahead of the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May, where it will try to get other countries to take additional steps to stop the nuclear proliferation. The United States is trying to keep an underlying bargain: The rest of the world agrees not to get nuclear weapons and to work with nuclear powers to keep those weapons from terrorists and other states, and the few states that already have nuclear weapons agree to get rid of them as soon as they can. America is doing everything it can to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and reduce the number of nuclear arms, while not weakening international security. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George Perkovich.

It's folly not to update nuclear arsenal

By William Tobey, Special to CNN
April 7, 2010 8:08 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

y y y y

William Tobey: In reality, Obama's new nuclear arms strategy not very new or different He cites one exception: "The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads" Tobey says aging nuclear arsenal badly needs to be technologically updated Tobey believes that "ruling out new designs is the triumph of ideology over science"

Editor's note: William Tobey is a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He served on the National Security Council staff under three presidents. (CNN) -- Presidents are extremely reluctant to limit their freedom to act before circumstances force them to make choices. "I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions" is often heard from the presidential podium. Why then would President Obama seemingly limit his own options to defend American security by accepting limits on employment of U.S. forces in his newly released Nuclear Posture Review? The answer is he has not, because, in reality, not much has changed. But one area where the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review might have a meaningful effect -- and a deleterious one -- is in improving the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. The new policy states flatly, "The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads." It anticipates programs to extend the life of existing warheads, but that work will not include new designs. The U.S. nuclear arsenal is aging. The newest weapon was deployed two decades ago and others are much older. Counterpoint: Obama's nuclear posture right for these times Since then, technologies for making nuclear weapons safe from accidental detonation and secure from unauthorized use have improved, even as the threat posed by nuclear terrorism has grown.
Refusing even to consider designs that might respond to these developments is breathtakingly Luddite. --William Tobey RELATED TOPICS

y y y y

Nuclear Weapons Nuclear Proliferation Treaties Barack Obama

Indeed, the 2010 Posture Review cites nuclear terrorism as the foremost threat we face. We now require and can design greater margins for safety and security. Refusing even to consider designs that might respond to these developments is breathtakingly Luddite. The tools of science are fundamental to nuclear safety and security; ruling out new designs is the triumph of ideology over science.

The other aspects of the strategy will not have such a big impact. For example, Obama's policy pledge that the United States will not use nuclear weapons even in retaliation for a chemical or biological weapons strike looks, on the surface, like a departure from previous policy. By the way, this is not a completely hypothetical issue. Before the first Gulf War, then-Secretary of State James Baker successfully employed a policy of "calculated ambiguity" about a possible U.S. nuclear response to Iraqi chemical or biological weapons attacks. The first Bush administration had determined it would not respond with nuclear weapons, but wanted to do everything possible to deter such attacks in the first place. But Obama's administration has introduced its own "calculated ambiguity," hedging its commitment by stating, "The United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat." In other words, the pledge is good until circumstances change. What about the administration's related pledge not to use or to threaten to use nuclear forces against non-nuclear weapon states that are in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty? The exceptions to the pledge, aside from certain of our allies, would include Russia and China, which are nuclear weapons states, and North Korea, Iran, and Syria, which have violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty or its associated Safeguards Agreements. North Korea has also withdrawn from the treaty. Thus, there has been little, if any, narrowing of contingencies potentially to be dealt with by U.S. forces. For the most part, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review incrementally advances policy in response to trends in evidence since the end of the Cold War. The United States has greatly reduced its nuclear arsenal and reliance on nuclear weapons to deter aggression. Indeed, the two Presidents Bush combined reduced the U.S. nuclear arsenal significantly -- by my calculation, about 80 percent -from its level at the end of the Cold War. That is all to the good. Read more about new restrictions on nuclear weapons use The five key goals of the new policy -- "preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism; reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy; maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels; strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal" -were all held by earlier administrations. But so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will require a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. That can only be guaranteed by a willingness to apply our best scientific resources to the task. To do otherwise is to handicap ourselves to the detriment of national security. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William Tobey.

Nuclear terrorism is most urgent threat

By Valerie Plame Wilson, Special to CNN
April 8, 2010 7:02 a.m. EDT

Valerie Plame Wilson: Nukes not OK

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

y y y y

Valerie Plame Wilson is a former CIA officer who worked to stop spread of nuclear materials She says nuclear weapons and terrorism represent No. 1 threat faced right now Plame says nations need to reduce nuclear arsenals and tightly control materials If governments don't act now, we will witness use of a bomb in our lifetime, she says RELATED TOPICS

y y y y

Terrorism Nuclear Weapons Central Intelligence Agency Nuclear Proliferation

Editor's note: Valerie Plame Wilson is a former covert CIA operations officer who now works at the Sante Fe Institute, a nonprofit science research think tank. (CNN) -- The story of how I became a national figure in the media is widely known, but few people know what I actually did for the CIA. I was a covert operations officer specializing in nuclear counter proliferation -- essentially, making sure the bad guys didn't get the bomb. My job was to create and run operations that sought to peer into the procurement networks and acquisition chains of rogue nations. It was intense, tactical, creative and demanding. I believed that there was no more important work to be done. I resigned from the CIA in 2006 because it was no longer possible to do the covert work for which I was highly trained and which I loved. This happened because in 2003, my covert identity was

revealed in retaliation against my husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote an op-ed piece in which he accused the White House of distorting the intelligence that was used to draw us into the Iraq war. But I did not lose my belief that the danger of nuclear terrorism was the most urgent threat we face. Nor did I lose my passion for working, albeit in a new way, to address that threat. I am working on this issue now as part of the international Global Zero movement, in which political, military and faith leaders, experts and activists strive for the worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons. We know that terrorist groups have been trying to buy, build or steal a bomb. In the past two decades, there have been at least 25 instances of nuclear explosive materials being lost or stolen. There is enough highly enriched uranium, or HEU, in the world today to build more than 100,000 bombs. Terrorists looking to buy or steal HEU could look to the approximately 40 countries with nuclear weapons materials. And then there are rogue individuals out there who are running black markets selling nuclear materials and technology. Pakistan's Dr. A. Q. Khan did it for years before my group at the CIA brought him down in December 2003 after catching him red-handed selling a full-scale nuclear bomb to Moammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya. If terrorists manage to get their hands on enough HEU, they could smuggle it into a target city, build a bomb and explode it. A hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium could fit in a shoebox, and 100,000 shipping containers come into the United States every day. The nuclear threat is not limited to terrorism. There are also the dangers of proliferation and accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. Today, nine countries have more than 23,000 nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Russia still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, poised for launch within a few minutes. The only way to eliminate the danger that nuclear weapons will be used by countries in conflict, by accident or by terrorists is to lock down all nuclear materials and eliminate all nuclear weapons in all countries: global zero. Today we have a real opportunity to set the course to global zero. U.S. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, whose countries have 22,000 nuclear weapons or 96 percent of the world's stockpile, are signing an agreement to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals by a third each. This is the most significant arms reduction treaty in two decades and a crucial first step. Next week, Obama is hosting the leaders of 48 countries at a summit in Washington to address the global nuclear threat and initiate programs to secure all nuclear materials worldwide. With the U.S. and Russia leading the way, 2010 could mark the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. But achieving global zero will take years, a realistic plan of action and tremendous amounts of political will. In February, leaders of the Global Zero movement met in Paris, France, and outlined a step-by-step plan to eliminate all remaining nuclear weapons. The plan, backed by hundreds of former heads-of-state, foreign ministers, national security advisers and military commanders, calls in its first phase for the U.S. and Russia to cut their arsenals to 1,000 total warheads each. All other countries with nuclear weapons would freeze their arsenals, and the international community would conduct an all-out global effort to block the further spread of nuclear weapons and to secure all nuclear materials. Locking down nuclear bomb-making materials involves building secure facilities for storage, accounting for all stockpiles, guarding materials in transit (transportation being the most vulnerable

to terrorist attack and seizure), regulating exports, interdicting smuggling operations, ending production of new bomb materials and ultimately eliminating existing stockpiles. These steps would be followed by the first multilateral negotiations in history for reductions by all nuclear weapons countries. I'm proud to be working with the Global Zero movement and its team of world leaders and grassroots organizers, presidents and college kids. I want to do everything I can to raise public and political support for the elimination of nuclear weapons. And that is why I said yes when Lawrence Bender, producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," "Good Will Hunting" and "Inglorious Basterds," asked me to be in an extraordinary and chilling documentary film, "Countdown to Zero," which premiered in January at the Sundance Film Festival to critical acclaim and will be released in U.S. theaters in July. The film will be a stunning wake-up call to citizens and our political leaders about the urgent threats posed by nuclear weapons, including proliferation, nuclear terrorism and accidental nuclear launch. It will build awareness and support for the Global Zero movement to eliminate nuclear weapons. Based on my experience in the field, I believe that if governments don't act now to begin eliminating all remaining nuclear weapons, we will witness in our lifetime the use of the bomb by a country or terrorist group. To get governments to act, everyone needs to get involved, to make their voices heard, to bring this issue to the top of the political agenda, to everyone's kitchen table and to the front pages of every blog and every newspaper. There is still time to change direction and set our course to global zero, but the clock is ticking. To learn more about the issue and get involved in the growing movement, go to globalzero.org and sign the declaration. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Valerie Plame Wilson.

Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could

Reuters President Barack Obama speaks at an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House in Washington April 6, By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer 1 hr 1 min ago

WASHINGTON If al-Qaida acquired nuclear weapons it "would have no compunction at using them," President Barack Obama said Sunday on the eve of a summit aimed at finding ways to secure the world's nuclear stockpile.

"The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said. "This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come." "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating," the president said. "We know that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them," Obama said. The Nuclear Security Summit of more than 40 world leaders in Washington this week is aimed at securing "loose nuclear material," Obama said. He was holding one-on-one meetings Sunday with several of those leaders. He said other world leaders have offered "very specific approaches to how we can solve this profound international problem." Obama singled out South Africa for giving up its nuclear program, and said it "has been a strong, effective leader in the international community on nonproliferation issues. South Africa has special standing in being a moral leader on this issue." South African President Jacob Zuma was among the leaders Obama met with Sunday at Blair House, across from the White House. Others included Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. "I feel very good at this stage in the degree of commitment and a sense of urgency that I have seen from the world leaders so far on this issue," Obama said. "We think we can make enormous progress on this, and this then becomes part and parcel of the broader focus that we've had over the last several weeks." Last Thursday, Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that reduces each side's deployed nuclear arsenal to 1,550 weapons. Earlier in the week, Obama approved a new nuclear policy for the United States, vowing to reduce America's nuclear arsenal, refrain from nuclear tests and not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Obama said securing loose nuclear arms is "a central part of the process, but probably the most urgent one and the one we are most concerned with in the short term." After his remarks, Obama met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani. The White House said Obama praised Pakistan for its quick reaction to an attack by Islamic militants against a U.S. consulate in northwestern Pakistan last week. Obama also reiterated that the U.S. and Pakistan are facing a common enemy.

Pakistan has a troubled history with the United States, and anti-American sentiment runs high among ordinary Pakistanis. U.S. leaders go out of their way to assure Pakistan that the United States will not walk away from the improving relationship with Pakistan, and Congress has committed billions in new aid to the country. Reagrding the purpose of the summit, the White House said Galani assured Obama that Pakistan takes nuclear security seriously and has appropriate safeguards in place. Obama wrapped up his Sunday schedule by meeting with acting Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan before returning to the White House.