Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 57, May 2001

Documents and Sources

US Nuclear Policy: A Memorandum to President Bush

'Policymakers views on addressing the nuclear threat: Memorandum to President Bush,' The Annapolis Group, May 2001.

Note: the report, released on May 1, can be viewed in full at http://www.clw.org/theannapolisgroup/memo.html.

"Decisions about nuclear weapons and other aspects of national security are among the most important and difficult you will make as President of the United States. The purpose of this memo is to help you in that process by identifying areas of consensus that already exist on key issues among those experts and policymakers whom you must deal with on national security. The Annapolis Group, a bipartisan group of public policy and national security experts, interviewed top officials in Congress, as well as present and former government officials in both parties, asking very specific questions about the most important nuclear and national security issues on your agenda. This memo presents the consensus views that were revealed in those interviews. We hope it is useful, Mr. President, not only in presenting in one document the views across a wide spectrum of the national security community, but also in demonstrating what the political market will bear on these issues. ...

[W]e did uncover a surprising and clear consensus on key issues. We believe that if you and your administration carry out the following recommendations, which are supported by virtually everyone we interviewed, you will not only enhance US security, you will help rebuild bipartisan support for our national security policies and fulfil pledges you made during the campaign. ...

Recommendation 1: You will need to pay closer attention to Russia if the US is to make progress on a number of important issues affecting national security, including reductions in strategic nuclear weapons and materials, missile defense, and proliferation.

Ten years after the end of the Cold War, our ties with Russia remain of central importance to our national security. Russia is the main repository of nuclear weapons outside the United States with 22,000 nuclear weapons that potentially threaten the United States. Russia's attitude toward US plans for national missile defense will directly impact global stability. On proliferation, Russia's cooperation could be key to progress with India, Iran and Iraq. As one former official said, 'nothing will happen' on arms control and non-proliferation 'unless it starts with the United States and Russia...The nuclear disarmament process with Russia is stalled, and non-proliferation arrangements are unravelling.' Others echoed this view. ...

Recommendation 2: You should seek significant reductions in US strategic nuclear weapons in consultation with Russia.

... Virtually everyone we interviewed has concluded that the United States could safely and prudently reduce its strategic nuclear weapons below levels set by the START II treaty - and a majority of those we interviewed would go below the levels proposed for the START III treaty of 2,000-2,500 warheads without compromising national security. You proposed deep reductions during the campaign. ... Consistent with Recommendation 1, and following the results of the strategic review you have asked the Pentagon to undertake, we believe your administration could dramatically reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. There is consensus support for both the United States and Russia proceeding unilaterally if necessary, though many would want the verification, transparency and predictability that only negotiated agreements can guarantee. ...

Recommendation 3: You should continue research and development on missile defense, but delay a decision on deployment.

This is one of the most divisive issues in the entire national security debate. Some wonder why we don't have a ballistic missile defense system in place now to defend against potential new missile threats, while others flatly believe that ever building such a system would be foolhardy and destabilizing. While both camps were certainly represented among those we interviewed, we did find a middle ground of support for continuing research on national missile defense, and even more interest in theater missile defense. While support for missile defense in the future is evident, there is little enthusiasm for immediate deployment of any system or near-term withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. ...

Recommendation 4: You should devote additional funding and attention to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including threat reduction and stockpile programs with Russia, unfinished missile negotiations with North Korea, and the recommendations of the Baker-Cutler report.

A persistent theme throughout our interviews was that preventing proliferation remains a central goal of US policy. It was more difficult to identify consensus on concrete steps to take. One recurring recommendation was for increased spending for programs aimed at securing and dismantling nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. ... One former Pentagon official said the programs to get control of nuclear weapons in Russia should be expanded to cover tactical nuclear weapons, as well as strategic weapons. ... There was remarkable agreement among those we interviewed that discussions with North Korea aimed at eliminating that country's nuclear development program should be continued and brought to fruition. ...

Recommendation 5: You should continue your comprehensive review of nuclear weapons policy and consider building upon the Rumsfeld review by seeking additional outside views later, in order to build bipartisan support for national security policy.

An important theme that emerged in our interviews concerned the importance of seeing clearly the threats we face and understanding the role nuclear weapons play in meeting those threats. The majority of those interviewed believe we need an updated, comprehensive review, and strongly supported the review you ordered earlier this year. ...

Other Issues

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Most of those we interviewed agreed that the time is not right to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Beyond that, the views on this issue are not settled. However, regardless of their views on the value of the treaty, most of those interviewed thought that passage at some point was important for US relations with allies and other nations. Several Republicans we interviewed flatly oppose ratifying the treaty, while others were open to future ratification, with modifications suggested by General Shalikashvili in his recent review of the treaty. ... Another Republican suggested, 'I would do it the way the Non-Proliferation Treaty was crafted, that is, a series of five-year renewals.' ...

The Annapolis Group

This memorandum is based on more than 40 interviews conducted off the record with key policymakers. The interviews were conducted by the Annapolis Group in late 2000 and early 2001. The Annapolis Group is a bipartisan group of public policy and national security experts. Among its members are: Joseph Cirincione, Alton Frye, Amb. Thomas Graham Jr., John Isaacs, John Rhinelander and Edith B. Wilkie. The Group is chaired by Beth C. DeGrasse. Lynn Erskine is the Project Manager. ...

The Annapolis Group Interviews: Graham Allison, Rep. Howard Berman, Sen. Joseph Biden, Hon. Dale Bumpers, Amb. Richard Butler, Ashton Carter, Hon. Dick Clark, Sen. Max Cleland, Sen. Kent Conrad, Charles Curtis, Randy DeValk, Rep. Norm Dicks, Ivan Eland, Amb. James Goodby, Rep. Porter Goss, Rep. Lindsey Graham, Amb. Donald Gregg, Morton Halperin, John Hamre, Sen. James Inhofe, Arnold Kanter, Lawrence Korb, Anthony Lake, Sen. Carl Levin, Ed Levine, Bruce MacDonald, Katherine Magraw, Brian Moran, Gen. Carl Mundy, Kenneth Myers III, Hon. Sam Nunn, Douglas Paal, William Perry, Daniel Poneman, Peter Rodman, Rep. Tim Roemer, Gen. John Shalikashvili, Rep. John Spratt, James Steinberg, Gen. John Tilelli, John Whitehead."