Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
2/13/2015
Senators whose states house facilities that play a major role in the U.S. nuclear enterprise mostly praised the Senate’s 93-5 vote yesterday to confirm Ashton Carter to replace Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. “I look forward to working with Dr. Ashton Carter to protect American security interests both domestic and abroad, as well as ensuring that America’s nuclear capabilities remain the most advanced in the world and serve as an effective deterrent,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who serves on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said in a statement. “I hope that Dr. Carter will be empowered to put forward policy recommendations regarding these international crises and the best interests of our Armed Forces without facing political roadblocks from the White House that have stifled the leadership of his three predecessors.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who serves on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, stated support of Carter’s confirmation days after meeting with him on Tuesday to discuss topics including maintenance and modernization of the nuclear enterprise and the Force Improvement Program (FIP), which Hoeven worked with Hagel to promote. “We need to ensure that our men and women in uniform, who do a tremendous job protecting our nation, have the tools and support they need to complete their missions,” Hoeven said. “I look forward to working with Secretary Carter to ensure that our nation is kept safe and strong.” During the meeting, Hoeven specifically emphasized plans to upgrade the B-52, replace the Minuteman 3, and develop a follow-on for the B-52’s air-launched cruise missile.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), whose state hosts the B-2 bomber base Whiteman AFB, cast one of the five dissenting confirmation votes, and expressed concern that Carter would merely advance President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. “After careful review, I’ve decided to vote against President Obama’s nominees for both the Departments of Defense and Justice,” he said in a statement. “Unfortunately, I believe both of these nominees will simply continue to uphold President Obama’s flawed agenda at these important agencies.”
Carter’s Experience
During his visit this week to Minot AFB in North Dakota, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said airmen were encouraged by the FIP, but were eager to know whether the changes would continue under Carter, according to a DoD release. “I told them, ‘Look, Ash Carter is literally a nuclear physicist. This is one of the areas that he really is both strong on and thinks very much about,’” Work said. “I told them that I thought it would continue, and certainly as long as I was the deputy secretary, it will continue.” The Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed Carter by a vote of 26-0 on Feb. 10, after the nominee’s initial SASC confirmation hearing was pushed back about a month while he recovered from back surgery. Obama tapped him as his Defense Secretary nominee in December, after Hagel announced plans to resign, and Carter was never expected to face much adversity during the confirmation process. Carter served as Deputy Defense Secretary from 2011 to 2013, following a two-year stretch as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. His experience in the nuclear arena includes leading the first Nuclear Posture Review in 1994 and serving on the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.
After hearing news of Carter’s presumptive nomination, nuclear weapon and nonproliferation experts alike expressed regard for his ability to bring a vast array of nuclear knowledge to his post. “Carter, personally, clearly has an interest in this subject and would have a lead, potentially, over other candidates, with his knowledge of the area,” Dr. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told NS&D Monitor in early December.
Carter Would Work with Congress and Pentagon to Fund Ohio-Class Replacement
On Feb. 4, during his first and only SASC confirmation hearing, Carter stated the Ohio-Class Replacement will “present unique constraints” on the Navy’s shipbuilding plan, especially if 2011 Budget Control Act funding levels return. He pledged meet with the Navy and Congress to manage the impact of Ohio-Class Replacement on the Navy’s shipbuilding (SCN) budget if those caps resurface, he stated in advanced policy questions before the hearing.
Responding to a question from Congress about Ohio-Class Replacement funding accounts—a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund has been set up for the program, though no money has been appropriated—Carter said he thought the program should be funded within the SCN budget, but stated that account associations was a secondary concern. “The Department needs adequate resources for modernization in order to ensure we can make the orderly transition to this new generation ballistic missile submarine,” Carter stated. “Which account it is funded in is of lesser importance. It makes the most sense to include the Ohio Replacement in the shipbuilding account, but this is a decision that can be made in the future.”
Carter Pledges Modernization/Nonproliferation Balance
During his confirmation hearing, Carter said he would support plans to ramp up efforts to secure fissile materials around the world while focusing on nuclear weapons modernization and the triad structure. “I think we need to do both and can do more in the way of securing fissile materials and the other wherewithal of nuclear weapons and also biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction around the world,” Carter said. “And I also believe that the United States needs a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent, because, as much as we would like to see nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction rid from the Earth, that doesn’t look like it’s something that’s going to happen soon. And it’s important that the American deterrent that we provide to our own country, but also to friends and allies who rely upon them, is safe, secure and reliable. So I think we need to do both and can do both.”
A Range of Options to Respond to Russian INF Violation
While Carter indicated that he would like to let U.S. diplomatic efforts to bring Russia back into compliance with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty run their course, he said the U.S. should also consider a “comprehensive strategy” of economic and military responses in an effort to convince Russia to come back to compliance or ensure that U.S. security is maintained if Russia remains in noncompliance. “Such efforts [to bring Russia back into compliance] must be allowed to produce the desired effect,” Carter said. But “Russia’s continued disregard for its international obligations and lack of meaningful engagement on this particular issue require the United States to take actions to protect its interests and security as well as those of its allies and partners,” he added. The State Department last summer made public its accusation that Russia violated the INF Treaty by developing a nuclear missile capable of hitting ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Russia has since denied the claim.
