Arms and Security Initiative: Policy Papers

Nuclear Bailout

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:03:00 -0400

Despite President Obama's recent pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is proposing a major upgrade to the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

Military Spending and Employment: The Case of the F-22

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:35:00 -0500

As part of its campaign to secure additional funding for the F-22 Raptor combat aircraft, the Lockheed Martin Corporation has asserted that 95,000 jobs are at stake if the program is terminated after the Pentagon's preferred production run of 183 planes.

Using two different estimating techniques (elaborated below), F-22 expenditures generate jobs in the range of 35,000 to 37,000 per year-- less than 40% of the levels claimed by Lockheed Martin.

U.S. Weapons at War 2008

Cecille Isidro — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:00:00 -0500

The United States, which entered into over $23 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and $32 billion in FY 2008 (see table 1), is the world's largest arms supplier. U.S. exports range from combat aircraft to Pakistan, Morocco, Greece, Romania, and Chile to small arms and light weapons to the Philippines, Egypt, and Georgia. In 2006 and 2007, the United States sold weapons to over 174 states and territories, a significant increase from the beginning of the Bush administration when the number of U.S. arms clients stood at 123.[1] While many of these sales were relatively small deals licensed commercially by the State Department, a number of important new states were added or restored to the U.S. client list, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, East Timor, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan.

U.S. Weapons at War 2008 (Executive Summary)

Cecille Isidro — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:50:00 -0500

The United States is the world's leading arms exporting nation, accounting for over 45 percent of all weapons transferred globally in 2007.

Deadly Traffic: China's Arms Trade With The Sudan

adminn — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:40:00 -0400

As a result of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China will be exposed to a greater global audience -- and greater global scrutiny -- than ever before. In order to put its best foot forward, the Chinese government has spent record amounts on everything from increased security to environmental cleanup.

But there are some Chinese policies that are too controversial to be "cleaned up" at the last minute. This is certainly the case with respect to China's role in arming Sudan's government. Chinese weapons transfers to the Khartoum regime too often end up in the hands of the Janjaweed militias that have devastated Sudan's Darfur region. The recent charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir underscore the moral bankruptcy of China's arms transfer policy.

This issue brief provides background on China's arms trade, with a primary focus on exports to the Sudan.

Iraq War Spurs Growth in Vehicle Manufacturing and Fuel Supply Contracts

adminn — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:59:00 -0400

The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have spurred strong growth in Pentagon prime contract awards to companies involved in armored vehicle production and fuel supply. In the mean time, major arms makers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have experienced much more modest growth rates.

Armored Vehicle Makers Benefit Most

A New America Foundation analysis of the Department of Defense's top ten contractors for FY 2007 found that the greatest increase by far from the prior year was posted by BAE Systems, which purchased Armor Holdings Inc., producer of the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), in July of 2007. BAE's Pentagon awards grew from $4.7 billion in FY 2006 to $9.8 billion in FY 2007, an
increase of over 87 percent. For General Dynamics, another top gainer, tracked combat vehicles like tanks accounted for more than half of the company's 39 percent increase ($4.1 billion).

By contrast, gains for the top three contractors were less dramatic. Lockheed Martin's Pentagon prime contracts increased by 4.5 percent, from $26.6 billion to $27.9 billion; Boeing's awards grew by 11.3 percent, from $20.3 billion to $22.5 billion; and Northrop Grumman's contracts increased by 4.2 percent, from $16.6 billion to $16.8 billion (see Table I).

Overall Pentagon awards grew by 4.3 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2007, from $298.5 billion to $312 billion. This was less than half the growth rate of 10.7 percent posted between FY 2005 and FY 2006— another sign that the Bush administration’s record post-World War II military buildup may be starting to wind down, despite the ongoing costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan Transform Contracting

Statistics from the Federal Procurement Data System provide a stark demonstration of the degree to which the Iraq and Afghan conflicts have transformed the Pentagon’s buying habits. A look at contract spending broken down by services shows that the Army has been the big winner, nearly doubling from FY 2003 to FY 2007, from $56.8 billion to $111.3 billion; the Navy was next in line, growing by 55.5 percent over the same time period, from $53.9 billion to $83.6 billion; while the Air Force was last with an increase of 30.8 percent from FY 2003 to FY 2007, from $51.5 billion to $68 billion.

A breakdown by products purchased is even more revealing, with contracts for “Liquid propellants and fuels, petroleum base” tripling between FY 2003 and FY 2007, from $3.7 billion to $11.1 billion. Major fuel contractors during FY 2007 included Royal Dutch Shell ($2.1 billion); Valero Energy Corporation, $1.0 billion; BP ($963.7 million); Exxon Mobil ($949.2 million); and Conoco Phillips ($267.2 million).

“Combat, Assault and Tactical Vehicles, Tracked” were among the top 5 products and services purchased by the Pentagon in FY 2007, at $8.9 billion, as were “Trucks and Tractors, Wheeled” at $8.1 billion. In addition to BAE Systems and General Dynamics, cited above, major vehicle producers receiving Pentagon prime contract awards during FY 2007 included McAndrews and Forbes Holdings (owner of AM General, the maker of the Humvee), $3.6 billion; and Oshkosh Truck Corporation, $2.3 billion.

A Threat to Big-Ticket Weapons Systems?

The “perfect storm” of rising fuel prices, an economic downturn, continuing needs for land equipment in Iraq, and growing calls for increasing the size of the Army and the Marines will place heavy budgetary pressure on expensive next generation items like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat System. Current combat needs and tightening budgets are likely to result in cutbacks or “stretch outs” of these kinds of projects.

Sources for this Report

USAspending.gov; U.S. Department of Defense Top 100 contractors series, FY 2006 edition; Tony Capaccio, “L-3 Rises, KBR Falls Among Top Defense Contractors,” Bloomberg.com, May 30, 2008; Business Wire, “BAE Systems Completes Acquisition of Armor Holdings Inc.,” July 31, 2007; Charlie Savage, “Senator Warns of a ‘Crisis’ In Pentagon Cost Overruns,” New York Times, June 4, 2008.

Contact

William Hartung, 212-431-5808, ext. 201, hartung@newamerica.net
Frida Berrigan, 212-431-5808, ext. 200, berrigan@newamerica.net

A PDF version of this report is available below for download.

Nuclear Bailout

Ron Tang — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:10:00 -0400

The Department of Energy (DOE) plans to undertake an extensive, multi-billion dollar investment in new nuclear weapons facilities and new nuclear warhead designs. The initiative, known as “Complex Transformation,” is unnecessary on strategic and technical grounds, not to mention exorbitantly expensive. The various plans being considered by the DOE have more to do with bailing out the nuclear weapons industry than they do with determining what size complex makes sense in an era of nuclear arms reductions. At a minimum, current proposals should be put on hold until the new president taking office in January 2009 has a chance to enunciate a new nuclear policy. That new policy should then guide any initiative to reshape the nuclear weapons complex.

Costs High, Savings Uncertain

Even the DOE’s own estimates suggest that the Complex Transformation initiative will cost well over $200 billion over the next two decades, or one-third more than previous estimates.

According to the DOE’s economic consultants, investments in upgrading the weapons complex may not be recouped through savings from more efficient operations until as late as 2060, more than 50 years from now. This suggests that a more affordable, less investment intensive approach to sustaining the complex -- such as a “curatorship” option that would only replace weapons components as needed and would forego any new warhead designs -- makes far more sense than any of the DOE’s current proposals.

Arguments For Complex Transformation Are Deeply Flawed

The Department of Energy (DOE) argues that the current nuclear weapons stockpile is aging to the point that existing weapons could become unsafe and unreliable. In fact, a Department of Energy funded study by the highly regarded scientific expert group JASON suggests that current warheads will be reliable for at least another 75 to 100 years.

Similarly, DOE’s argument that nuclear weapons facilities are too old is misleading. Although some of the buildings were built decades ago, much of the equipment -- which is the heart of the nuclear weapons complex -- has been regularly repaired, upgraded or replaced.

If the main issue is to retain “core competencies” for the design and production of nuclear weapons in case of a renewed nuclear arms race, a ‘curatorship approach’ (cited above) is more than sufficient for the job. Yet DOE has explicitly refused to examine the curatorship option as one of the approaches analyzed in its environmental impact statement for the Complex Transformation initiative.

Strategic Vision Missing In Action

At a time when distinguished foreign policy experts from Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to William Perry and Sam Nunn are calling for a “world free of nuclear weapons,” the Department of Energy is not seriously exploring what deep cuts or outright elimination of nuclear weapons would mean for the future of its weapons complex.

A U.S. plan to design and build new nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons factories could spur nuclear proliferation by reducing Washington’s leverage in persuading countries like Iran and North Korea to forego or roll back their own nuclear programs.

For the full text of the issue brief, please see the PDF attached below.

To Build or Not to Build?

American Strategy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:25:00 -0400

Periodically the United States government reviews its doctrine on the strategic purpose and potential use of nuclear weapons. In keeping with its most recent Nuclear Posture Review, released in 2002, the Bush administration has proposed a revision of the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign policy. In place of the Cold War “triad” of nuclear delivery vehicles based on land, at sea, and in the air, the review proposed a “new triad” consisting of offensive strike systems, an expansion of missile defense initiatives, and the construction of a “revitalized infrastructure” designed to develop and produce new nuclear weapons as needed. A central component of this revitalized infrastructure is the plan to build a new nuclear weapons plant in Kansas City.

This report addresses the proposal to modernize and upgrade the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nuclear weapons complex, with a special focus on the Kansas City Plant. NNSA is the semi-autonomous agency in the Department of Energy (DOE) that handles their nuclear weapons program. For the complete document, please see the attached PDF below.