Category Archives: Russia

Pam Geller and those Before Her

Posted on by

Did the Yazidis draw cartoons? Did James Foley draw cartoons? Did Daniel Pearl draw cartoons?

How is it that Islam has assumed exclusive power with the declaration they are the judge, jury and executioner of what is blasphemy?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has this on Pam Geller. Ah but, they do have a right to do so as noted by the Supreme Court decision in 2011 in the case of picketing a funeral.

All media, even global media has become Sharia compliant for not standing long ago on free speech and now for blaming the Garland, Texas attack on those who are taking a stand.

Pam Geller, Tom Trento, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and Louis Gohmert are all declaring a call to action, a clarion call and offering sage advise. Are we as a nation listening? Two hundred plus years later why they forced to do this? They are telling you the same as many historical figures before them. LISTEN

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
― George Washington

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
― Harry S. Truman

Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Geller is taking a stand with her organization noted here.

Robert Spencer is doing the same here, offering books and lesson plans.

Tom Trento is tireless in his efforts as noted here.

Geert Wilders has been at the mission for a very long time in Europe.

Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).

 

Globetrotters: Who Flew With Hillary’s Planes

Posted on by

Citizens United has filed yet more lawsuits against the U.S. State Department for being non-responsive on Freedom of Information Act requests to determine who rode with Hillary on her planes during her stint as Secretary of State. The passengers would add puzzle pieces giving clues to Foundation donations, lobbying efforts and backroom deals.

The Clintons are powerbrokers and they work with other domestic and foreign power leaders demonstrating more collusion.

Firm Co-Founded By Hillary’s Campaign Chair Lobbies For Russia’s Uranium One

Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.

Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.

And according to a disclosure filed April 20, Uranium One spent $20,000 lobbying the Senate and State Department on the same issue.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers Tony and John Podesta. Tony Podesta now heads the group while John Podesta, who has not worked for the family business for years but has been involved in plenty of other projects, leads Hillary Clinton toward a Democratic nomination.

Uranium One is significant because it fell under the corporate control of Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One effectively gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium in the U.S.

How all of that came to pass has fostered questions about how the Clintons operate their charity, the Clinton Foundation.

The Uranium One story starts in 2005 when Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra and several business partners came to own a small mining company called UrAsia Energy. Clinton flew with Giustra in September 2005 on a private jet to Kazakhstan. There, the mining tycoon negotiated with that nation’s mining agency, Kazataprom, for rights to three mines. After Clinton appeared publicly in support of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had just allegedly won an election with more than 90 percent of the vote, the mining deal was approved.

Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a pledge of $100 million more.

In 2007, UrAsia Energy, with its access to Kazakhstan’s lucrative mines, merged with South Africa’s Uranium One in a $3.5 billion deal. Giustra sold his stake in the company soon after, pocketing a tidy profit. But other investors and executives with close ties to Giustra maintained their interests and donated millions more to the Clinton group. As money was flowing to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, which came under the control of Hillary Clinton in January 2009, approved a series of transactions that allowed Russia’s Rosatom to buy up shares in Uranium One. By June 2009, Rosatom had a 51 percent stake in the company.

With that majority hold, the Russian energy company effectively gained control of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S.

Rosatom has since taken complete control of Uranium One. And while there is little risk that the metal being pulled out of U.S. soil poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, it does give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of a major source of energy amid cooling diplomatic relations.

Though Uranium One’s corporate progression has the appearance of pay-for-play, the Clintons and Giustra have denied doing anything wrong. In his capacity as Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta has gone on the offensive, dismissing the notion that the Clintons have done anything illegal or unethical as a conspiracy theory.

But as evidence of just how complex the Clinton Foundation’s activities are, the website Vox.com published an exhaustive list of 181 Clinton Foundation donors who also lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.

Uranium One is not on the list. Neither is Giustra. Nor is Ian Telfer, one of Giustra’s Canadian associates who is the former chairman of Uranium One. He donated $2.35 million through his Fernwood Foundation to the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation, which is set up as a partnership with Giustra.

After it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had not disclosed some of its foreign donations — such as Telfer’s — the organization announced it would be refiling some of its tax forms.

 

Putin’s New Offensive

Posted on by

Our top concern is a revanchist Russia. General Breedlove:

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished Members of the Committee.  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  It is an honor to be here representing the dedicated Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, civilians and families of the U.S. European Command.  Thank you for all you do to support them, as they serve the nation.

Compared to just one year ago, Europe faces a very different, and much more challenging security environment.one with significant, lasting implications for U.S. national security interests.

Our top concern is a revanchist Russia.

Russia is blatantly challenging the rules and principles that have been the bedrock of European security for decades.  The challenge is global. not regional. and enduring. not temporary.  Russian aggression is clearly visible in its illegal occupation of Crimea, and in its continued operations in eastern Ukraine.

In Ukraine, Russia has supplied their proxies with heavy weapons, training and mentoring, command and control, artillery fire support, and tactical-and operational-level air defense,. Russia has transferred many pieces of military equipment into Ukraine, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery pieces, and other military vehicles.

What we have seen over the course of the fight, was that when the Russian proxy offensive ran into trouble, Russian forces intervened directly to “right the course.”

Today on the ground, the situation is volatile and fragile.  Russian forces used the opportunities provided by the recent lull in fighting to re-set and re-position, while protecting their gains.  Many of their actions are consistent with preparations for another offensive.

The hope remains that both parties will fully implement an effective ceasefire as an important step toward an acceptable political resolution of the conflict, one that respects the internationally recognized border.

I am often asked, “Should the United States and others provide weapons to Ukraine?”  What we see is a Russia that is aggressively applying all elements of national power – diplomatic, informational, and economic, as well as military.  So my view,.is it would not make sense to unnecessarily take any of our own tools off the table.

But the crisis in Ukraine is about more than just Ukraine.    Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states, and the region as a whole,..and Russia’s illegal actions are pushing instability closer to the boundaries of NATO.

We cannot be fully certain what Russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp Putin’s intent. What we can do is learn from his actions,. And what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent.

We also know that Putin responds to strength., and seeks opportunities in weakness. We must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence.

At the same time, Europe also faces the challenge of a surge in violent extremism.

European nations are rightly worried about foreign fighters returning home to Europe from the fight in Syria and Iraq, with new skills and malign intent.  Attacks like those in France. Belgium. and Denmark. are only likely to become more frequent.

Foreign fighters are part of a much broader pattern of insecurity to  Europe’s south, with roots in the Middle East and North Africa.  Transit routes are shared by violent extremists, organized criminal networks, and migrant populations fleeing difficult conditions in Libya and other under-governed places. The spread of instability into Europe, and the transnational terrorism we all face could have a direct bearing on the national security of the U.S. homeland.

EUCOM is working with European nations bilaterally and supporting NATO Alliance initiatives, to meet and counter this new and more complex security environment.

Based on the decisions made at the NATO Wales Summit last year, the Alliance is adapting in order to improve its readiness and responsiveness.  The Readiness Action Plan, or RAP, is well underway.  Our Allies are stepping up, making significant contributions that give them a real stake in the outcome.  The United States will have a key and sustained role to play in supporting and enabling these changes – especially in critical areas that are hardest for our Allies to provide, like lift, sustainment, and enablers such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

At the same time, our own U.S. efforts in Europe remain essential.  Our leadership is perhaps more important now than at any time in recent history.

Since Russian troops illegally occupied Crimea last year, U.S. forces, under the banner of Operation Atlantic Resolve, have continued to take concerted steps to assure Allies of our commitment to their security and to Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty – the common defense cornerstone of transatlantic security.

EUCOM air, land, maritime and special operations forces have maintained presence in all three of our NATO allies in the Baltics; Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, as well as in the Black Sea,..providing an array of capabilities including  airborne, armor, mobile infantry, light fighter, strike-fighter, advanced air, and maritime presence in addition to training, advising, and exercising with host nation forces.

You have made most of this persistent presence possible through your support for the European Reassurance Initiative, or “ERI.”  The assurance measures it supports enable the Alliance to remain strong and cohesive in this new security environment. In facing both of these serious challenges – to Europe’s east and to its south – EUCOM is working closely with many others,.our sister COCOMs, NATO partners as well as Allies, and other international organizations including the European Union.  There is plenty of work to go around, and our collaboration, and our unity, are essential.   EUCOM is also drawing heavily on great new efforts underway in the Department of Defense – not least the Defense Innovation Initiative, which applies cutting-edge approaches to some of the toughest challenges in our theater, like anti-access area denial.

The strong threat posed by Russia, and the growing challenge to the south, lead me to three areas where EUCOM could particularly use your help:

First – sufficient persistent forward presence.

Our forward presence in Europe is the bedrock of our ability to assure Allies, to deter real and potential adversaries, and to be postured to act in a timely manner should deterrence fail.

It was our permanent presence in Europe that gave EUCOM the ability to respond immediately after Russian troops illegally occupied Crimea. Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Germany deployed to the Baltic States and Poland within 96 hours of receiving their mission. And our F-15s from Lakenheath, England began flying missions out of Poland within 18 hours of mission receipt.

That same permanent presence ensures that EUCOM can play a full array of essential supporting roles for other Combatant Commands – from neighboring AFRICOM and CENTCOM, to STRATCOM and TRANSCOM.

Rotational presence is not a substitute for permanent forward presence in building relationships or signaling our commitment.  A fully funded rotational presence can play an important role in helping meet the requirements in our theater – but only if it is heel-to-toe and properly resourced.

Second – sufficient intelligence support.

Since the end of the Cold War, our nation’s community of Russian area experts has shrunk considerably, and intelligence assets of all kinds have been shifted to the wars we’ve been fighting or to understanding potential future threats.

Russian military operations over the past year, in Ukraine and in the region more broadly, have underscored that there are critical gaps in our collection and analysis.  Some Russian military exercises have caught us by surprise, and our  textured feel for Russian involvement on the ground in Ukraine has been quite limited.

Earlier indications and warning – and the ability to better understand Moscow’s thinking and intent – are absolutely critical for avoiding future surprise and miscalculation, for deterring effectively, and for preparing to respond if required.   Getting this right requires more ISR, high-power analytical support, and appropriate intelligence-sharing with Allies and partners.  The same holds true for effectively waging counter-terrorism and counter-ISIL operations in and through the European theater.  A small investment in this capability could lead to a large return in our understanding of the complex challenges we face.

Third, and finally, sufficient future resourcing.

In the near term, EUCOM’s particular request is for your support for European Reassurance Initiative for Fiscal Year 2016.  Your support for ERI in 2015 demonstrated commitment to our Allies, increased our ability to shape the European Theater, and allowed EUCOM to build and sustain the capacity of our Allies and partners.

The request for ERI funding in FY16 builds on this initiative.  Key components include: maintaining air superiority presence, participating in NATO exercises, supporting the rotational presences of an Armored Brigade Combat Team,  repositioning equipment, funding Global Response Force exercises, fostering SOCEUR engagement with partners, and increasing Guard and Reserve participation across the theater.

We understand that these reassurance measures come at a cost, and in the current budget environment, additional cost means making tough choices.  As a result of previous budget constraints, EUCOM has already assumed greater risk to our mission.  Specifically, our deployment timelines are longer, our preparations are less robust, and our fundamental ability to deter and defeat in a timely and effective manner is less sure than it was a decade ago.

As Secretary Carter testified recently, further reductions would damage our national security, and have a direct and lasting impact on our ability to protect and defend the nation in and from the European Theater.  Meanwhile, the security challenges in and around Europe are growing sharper and more complicated.

*** It is complicated and the ambitions of Russia are not without notice, but are certainly without dispute or consequence from any Western leaders.

Moscow Likely to Choose Control of Territories Over Their Economic Development

The Russian government is considering building a new water link connecting the Caspian Sea to the ocean via the Azov and Black seas. The new route is supposed to be the shortest and the cheapest way to carry Chinese goods via Central Asia to Europe. Existing oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to outside markets also have hit the limits of their capacities, and finding new ways for exporting oil and gas is another important aspect of the project. Central Asian countries are regarded as the primary beneficiaries of the new transportation link, with Kazakhstan reportedly being its most ardent supporter. It is believed the new link will also boost the stagnant economies of the North Caucasus, creating new jobs and providing better access to world markets and investment. The Eurasian Development Bank has allotted $2.7 million for early project assessment, and the results of the research was discussed in the Russian Ministry of Transportation, but that discussion was closed to the public (Kavkazskaya Politika, April 17).

The proposed water link, commonly referred to as the “Eurasia canal,” would significantly affect the economic and political situation in the North Caucasus and southern Russia more generally (see EDM, June 25, 2007). Southern Russia has significant agricultural potential and would certainly be of interest to Chinese investors. Access by Chinese investors to the North Caucasus would also substantially improve local economies and decrease their dependence on subsidies from Moscow. As a rule, the Russian government prefers control to development. Unless the government is reassured that there is no threat to its control over the North Caucasus, it is unlikely to proceed with even the most lucrative developmental projects.

Will Hillary Blame Lois Lerner?

Posted on by

Trickle down or rather trickle out to someone else. Hillary and the Foundation insider operatives are likely in a war room concocting damage control and a blame agenda. Could Lois Lerner at the IRS be in their target sites?

 

The IRS cant be blamed for book deals and speaking fees arranged through the State Department. Blame cannot go to Lois Lerner for 1100 non-recorded foreign donors to the Foundations unless, Lerner was told to look away. But, since the IRS Inspectetor General has successfully located even more of Lois Lerner’s emails, perhaps she does hold some blame and Hillary pointing fingers elsewhere may be a viable ploy.

‘Out-of-control family affair’: Experts question Clinton Foundation’s true charitable spending

The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 — $144.3 million in 2013 alone — but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.

The foundation, originally called the Clinton Global Initiative, has come under close scrutiny as Hillary Clinton prepares for a presidential run. Revelations in the soon-to-be-released book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, have spurred numerous media investigations into the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the foundation’s solicitation of foreign money and the ex-president’s lucrative speaking engagements around the world.

“It sounds like another out-of-control family affair.”

– Reg Baker, CPA and board member of non profit organizations

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon defended the charity’s work in Africa and elsewhere and said in a statement there isn’t “a shred of evidence” that Hillary Clinton did anything to benefit Clinton Foundation donors while in office.

The foundation raised $144.3 million – and spent $84.7 million in 2013 – allocating $8.8 million to grants for other organizations, Davis said. The Clinton Foundation’s own IRS tax filings show the organization spent $8.5 million, or 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures, on travel, and another $4.8 million — or 5.6 percent of all expenditures — on office supplies, Davis said, questioning whether plane tickets, hotel accommodations, ink cartridges and staplers “directly change lives.”

Organizations that rate charities on their effectiveness in spending donations on the causes they champion say gauging the Clinton Foundation is difficult, but they have raised flags.

CharityNavigator.org added the Clinton Foundation to its “watchlist,” noting the organization officials “had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.”

While maintaining its removal of The Clinton Foundation from its website is “neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity,” the Clinton Foundation is one of only 23 charities on the watchlist.

Another charity rating organization, GiveWell, said the Clinton Health Access Initiative declined in November 2012 to participate in its review process, and hasn’t since. The Clinton Health Access Initiative in 2008 and 2009 acted as a drug distribution powerhouse, purchasing $226 million in prescription drugs at a discount to distribute worldwide, a practice ended by 2012.

In 2012, the Better Business Bureau reported the Clinton Foundation did not meet the standards of an accountable charity, failing on six counts, largely because of a lack of transparent financial reporting. According to the Better Business Bureau website, the charity is again under review and a new report will be released soon.

Some of the financial reporting can be messy to follow, in part because the Clintons created separate entities, such as the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Haiti relief initiative, Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Presidential Center and the Clinton Climate Initiative.

While IRS filings show the Clintons do not receive a salary, compensation comes through other means, such as travel, speaking fees and consulting contracts.

As first noted by Politico, the organization’s 990 forms show travel costs for the Clinton Foundation more than doubled in 2013 to $8.448 million largely because of “extraordinary security and other requirements” for the Clintons.

Schweizer’s book explores one way the foundation brought in money from donors who had business before the State Department, Fox News Channel reported. The charity accepted millions of dollars from the head of Uranium One, and a firm promoting its stock, while the Russians sought approval from U.S. agencies, including the State Department, to take over the company. The deal had to be approved by the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton because the sale gave the Russians control of 20 percent of the uranium production in the U.S.

During negotiations, Uranium One’s chairman donated $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton also reportedly received $500,000 from a Russian firm promoting the company’s stocks, for a speech in Moscow. None of these transactions appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

A separate investigation by government watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed Bill Clinton earned $48 million from 215 speeches he made while his wife headed the State Department, and State Department officials, who were charged with flagging conflicts and ethics concerns, did not object.

A Washington Post investigation revealed Bill Clinton’s earnings for speeches were closer to $100 million.

In another controversial deal, Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels donated 2 million shares of the company Polo Resources to the Clinton Foundation, which the foundation did not disclose, and weeks later, America’s Bangladesh ambassador reportedly used political influence to convince the Bangladesh prime minister to approve open pit mining there, boosting Polo Resources’ profits, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the government watchdog group, Sunlight Foundation, told the New York Post.

Reg Baker, a certified public accountant who has offices in Hawaii and Las Vegas and has served on several non-profit boards, told FoxNews.com the foundation is not run like most charities.

“It sounds like another out-of-control family affair,” Baker said. “It is totally out of sync with charitable organizations’ best practices.”

The 2014 fundraising numbers for the Clinton Foundation have not been released publicly yet, but the amount raised is likely to increase.

In 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised $188.2 million, and that revenue spiked to $249 million in 2009. In 2010, while Hillary Clinton headed the State Department, the foundation’s revenue dropped to $140 million in 2010, $56.3 million in 2011, and $51.5 million in 2012. Since she’s returned, the foundation’s revenue jumped back up to $144.4 million, Davis noted.

After a barrage of investigative reports across a wide variety of media highlighting the foundation’s lack of transparency and disclosure, including during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation announced last week it will amend its tax returns for the last five years.

 

Blabbermouth John Kerry, U.S. Nukes by the Numbers

Posted on by

Who says that and why? Misguided transparency perhaps? So, if this protected information has been made public, you should see it as well. The timing of the release of the United States stockpile is suspect however.

Obama Administration Releases New Nuclear Warhead Numbers

By Hans M. Kristensen

In a speech to the Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York earlier today, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry disclosed new information about the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Updated Stockpile Numbers

First, Kerry updated the DOD nuclear stockpile history by declaring that the stockpile as of September 2014 included 4,717 nuclear warheads. That is a reduction of 87 warheads since September 2013, when the DOD stockpile included 4,804 warheads, or a reduction of about 500 warheads retired since President Obama took office in January 2009.

The September 2014 number of 4,717 warheads is 43 warheads off the estimate we made in our latest FAS Nuclear Notebook in March this year.

Disclosure of Dismantlement Queue

Second, Kerry also announced a new number we have never seen in public before: the official number of retired nuclear warheads in line for dismantlement. As of September 2014, the United States had approximately 2,500 additional warheads that have been retired (but are still relatively intact) and awaiting dismantlement.

The number of “approximately 2,500” retired warheads awaiting dismantlement is close to the 2,340 warheads we estimated in the FAS Nuclear Notebook in March 2015.

Increasing Warhead Dismantlements

Kerry also announced that the administration “will seek to accelerate the dismantlement of retired nuclear warheads by 20 percent.”

“Over the last 20 years alone, we have dismantled 10,251 warheads,” Kerry announced.

This updates the count of 9,952 dismantled warheads from the 2014 disclosure, which means that the administration between September 2013 and September 2014 dismantled 299 retired warheads.

Under current plans, of the “approximately 2,500” warheads in the dismantlement queue, the ones that were retired through (September) 2009 will be dismantled by 2022. Additional warheads retired during the past five years will take longer.

How the administration will accelerate dismantlement remains to be seen. The FY2016 budget request for NNSA pretty much flatlines funding for weapons dismantlement and disposition through 2020. In the same period, the administration plans to complete production of the W76-1 warhead, begin production of the B61-12, and carry out refurbishments of four other warheads. If the administration wanted to dismantle all “approximately 2,500″ retired warheads by 2022 (including those warheads retired after 2009), it would have to dismantle about 312 warheads per year – a rate of only 13 more than it dismantled in 2014. So this can probably be done with existing capacity.

Implications

Secretary Kerry’s speech is an important diplomatic gesture that will help the United States make its case at the NPT review conference that it is living up to its obligations under the treaty. Some will agree, others will not. The nuclear-weapon states are in a tough spot at the NPT because there are currently no negotiations underway for additional reductions; because the New START Treaty, although beneficial, is modest; and because the nuclear-weapon states are reaffirming the importance of nuclear weapons and modernizing their nuclear arsenals as if they plan to keep nuclear weapons indefinitely (see here for worldwide status of nuclear arsenals).

And the disclosure is a surprise. As recently as a few weeks ago, White House officials said privately that the United States would not be releasing updated nuclear warhead numbers at the NPT conference. Apparently, the leadership decided last minute to do so anyway.

The roughly 500 warheads cut from the stockpile by the Obama administration is modest and a disappointing performance by a president that has spoken so much about reducing the numbers and role of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the political reality has been an arms control policy squeezed between a dismissive Russian president and an arms control-hostile U.S. Congress.

In addition to updating the stockpile history, the most important part of the initiative is the disclosure of the number of weapons awaiting dismantlement. This is an important new transparency initiative by the administration that was not included in the 2010 or 2014 stockpile transparency initiatives. Disclosing dismantlement numbers helps dispel rumors that the United States is hiding a secret stash of nuclear warheads and enables the United States to demonstrate actual dismantlement progress.

And, besides, why would the administration not want to disclose to the NPT conference how many warheads it is actually working on dismantling? This can only help the United States at the NPT review conference.

There will be a few opponents of the transparency initiative. Since they can’t really say this harms U.S. national security, their primary argument will be that other nuclear-armed states have so far not response in kind.

Russia and China have not made public disclosures of their nuclear warhead inventories. Britain and France has said a little on a few occasions about their total inventories and (in the case of Britain) how many warheads are operationally available or deployed, but not disclosed the histories of stockpiles or dismantlement. And the other nuclear-armed states that are outside the NPT (India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan) have not said anything at all.

But this is a work in progress. It will take a long time to persuade other nuclear-armed states to become more transparent with basic information about nuclear arsenals. But seeing that it can be done without damaging national security and at the same time helping the NPT process is important to cut through old-fashioned excessive nuclear secrecy and increase nuclear transparency. Hat tip to the Obama administration.

This publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.