Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Weapons Political Geography United States Content Type Policy Brief

1. Nuclear Challenges for the New U.S. Presidential Administration: The First 100 Days and Beyond

Author:
Kelsey Davenport, Daryl G. Kimball, and Kingston Reif
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
Upon taking office, the new presidential administration of Joseph Biden will confront a dizzying array of major challenges, not the least of which are related to the risks posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons. Tensions between the world’s nuclear-armed states are rising; the risk of nuclear use is growing; billions of dollars are being spent to replace and upgrade nuclear weapons; and key agreements that have kept nuclear competition in check are gone or are in serious jeopardy. The situation has been complicated by the neglect and poor policy choices of President Donald Trump and his administration. Over the past four years the Trump administration made nearly every nuclear policy challenge facing the United States worse. Fortunately, Biden has a long and distinguished track record when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons-related security issues. Unlike his predecessor, Biden possesses a strong personal commitment to effective nuclear arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament that dates back to his early days in the Senate and continued through his last days as vice-president under President Barack Obama. In this analysis we have outlined what we believe to be the five most important sets of nuclear weapons policy challenges and decisions that the new Biden administration will need to address in its first 100 days and beyond, along with recommendations for effectively dealing with each of these policy challenges: Reviving and Advancing the Nuclear Arms Control Enterprise Reducing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Excess Stabilizing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Jump-starting Denuclearization and Peace Diplomacy with North Korea Restoring U.S. Leadership on Multilateral Nonproliferation and Disarmament If pursued, these actions and decisions would make the United States and the world safer from the threats posed by nuclear weapons. These initial steps would also put the administration in a better position to pursue more lasting and far-reaching nuclear risk reduction and elimination initiatives over the next four years.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Peace, Denuclearization, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

2. Deter and Normalize Relations with North Korea

Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The U.S. is strong and safe—North Korea is weak, deterred by U.S. power, and desperate for economic relief.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, International Security, Sanctions, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, North Korea, and Korea

3. The U.S.-South Korea Alliance: Toward a Relationship of Equals

Author:
Jessica J. Lee
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
President Trump contends that “very rich and wealthy countries” like the Republic of Korea should pay more for American troops stationed in their countries. While a more balanced burden-sharing arrangement is necessary, the U.S.’s demand for a five-fold increase in South Korea’s contribution, from $924 million to $5 billion, threatens to tear apart the bilateral relationship and undermines U.S. interests on the Korean Peninsula. The issue demanding attention is not who pays how much, but whether the existing terms of the U.S.–ROK security relationship remain pertinent or must be revised. The long-term goal of U.S. grand strategy should be to facilitate the creation of a peaceful global order consisting of fully sovereign, law-abiding states capable of providing for their own security. Any state that hosts foreign forces and relies on those forces for its defense is not fully sovereign: It is dependent upon others to ensure its security. This describes the Republic of Korea today.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Liberal Order, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, and South Korea

4. U.S. Nuclear Excess: Understanding the Costs, Risks, and Alternatives

Author:
Kingston Reif and Alicia Sanders-Zakre
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
In a little-noticed comment before his controversial July 2018 summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, U.S. President Donald Trump characterized his government’s multi-hundred billion dollar plans to replace the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal as “a very, very bad policy.” He seemed to express some hope that Russia and the United States, which together possess over 90 percent of the planet’s nuclear warheads, could chart a different path and avert renewed military and nuclear competition. The Helsinki meeting, however, did not produce any agreement on nuclear weapons and Trump has so far shown little interest in a different nuclear spending path. Quite the opposite, in fact.“We have far more money than anybody else by far,” Trump said last October. “We’ll build [the U.S. nuclear arsenal] up until” other nuclear-armed states such as Russia and China “come to their senses.” Citing a deteriorating international security environment, the Trump administration is pursuing a significant expansion of the role and capability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In addition to continuing full speed ahead with its predecessor’s plans to replace the nuclear triad and its associated warheads on largely a like-for-like basis, the administration is proposing to broaden the circumstances under which the United States would consider the first use of nuclear weapons, develop two new sea-based, lowyield nuclear options, and lay the groundwork to grow the size of the arsenal. At the same time, key U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreements, which serve to regulate the nuclear balance and prevent unconstrained nuclear competition, are now in serious doubt. The Trump administration has announced the United States will leave the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August 2019 unless Russia returns to compliance with the pact, and expressed hostility towards extending the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). New START expires in 2021 but can be extended by up to five years subject to the agreement of Washington and Moscow. In short, the Trump administration is preparing to compete in a new nuclear arms race while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of such a contest. The projected cost of the proposed nuclear spending spree is staggering and it is growing. The United States currently plans to spend nearly $500 billion, after including the effects of inflation, to maintain and replace its nuclear arsenal over the next decade, according to a January 2019 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. This is an increase of nearly $100 billion, or about 23 percent, above the already enormous projected cost as of the end of the Obama administration. Over the next 30 years, the price tag is likely to top $1.5 trillion and could even approach $2 trillion. These big nuclear bills are coming due as the Defense Department is seeking to replace large portions of its conventional forces and internal and external fiscal pressures are likely to limit the growth of—and perhaps reduce—military spending. “We’re going to have enormous pressure on reducing the debt which means that defense spending—I’d like to tell you it’s going to keep going up—[but] I’m not terribly optimistic,” Alan Shaffer, deputy under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said in February 2019. This report outlines the ways in which the Trump administration’s nuclear strategy is unnecessary, unsustainable, and unsafe. It describes three realistic options to reduce spending on nuclear weapons while still maintaining a devastating nuclear deterrent. Scores of billions of dollars could be saved or redirected to higher priorities by eliminating, delaying, or scaling back the administration’s proposals for new delivery systems, warheads, and infrastructure.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, International Security, Nonproliferation, Denuclearization, and Arms Race
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

5. The Future of the ICBM Force: Should the Least Valuable Leg of the Triad Be Replaced?

Author:
Ryan Snyder
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plan to overhaul the nation’s nuclear arsenal is the replacement program for the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, the land-based leg of the nuclear triad that also includes submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers. The current deployed fleet of 400 silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs are distributed across three bases touching five states and are expected to be removed from service by the U.S. Air Force in the mid-2030s. A follow-on ICBM system–known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)–is scheduled to replace the Minuteman IIIs (and their supporting infrastructure) on a one-for-one basis between 2028 and 2035. Many have questioned the need for this program, including former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who has argued for eliminating all ICBMs. The latest independent Pentagon acquisition cost estimate to design and build the ICBM replacement ranges from $85 to over $140 billion (in then-year dollars), while the cost to operate and sustain the weapons system over its expected 50-year service life is projected at roughly $150 billion. This ICBM recapitalization cost is but one piece of a larger plan to sustain and upgrade the nuclear arsenal over the next thirty years, with the total price tag projected to exceed $1.2 trillion (in 2017 dollars). Separate modernization programs planned for U.S. conventional forces will require additional outlays. These upgrades will necessitate either a significant and prolonged increase in defense spending, which is unlikely to be forthcoming, or a reallocation of resources within the defense budget. Hard choices will likely be required among competing programs. The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review published in February endorses replacing and upgrading the current Minuteman III force with the GBSD program. It will be up to Congress to assess the program’s cost-effectiveness and evaluate alternatives. This paper will examine this issue in several stages: first, by considering whether ICBMs are needed to hedge against threats to the strategic submarines; second, by discussing their possible benefits and risks as a warhead “sponge”; third, by examining whether ICBMs possess necessary capabilities absent from other legs of the triad; and last, by considering the stability implications of developing a new ICBM with enhanced capabilities. Finally, the paper evaluates alternative options to the costly GBSD program of record.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Affairs, Missile Defense, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

6. U.S.-Russian Arms Control At Risk: An Assessment and Path Forward

Author:
Maggie Tennis
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
In March 2017, Gen. Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that Russia had deployed a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) violating the “spirit and intent” of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Selva warned the committee that Russia is “modernizing its strategic nuclear triad and developing new nonstrategic nuclear weapons.” His testimony illustrates the new normal of U.S.-Russian relations, wherein historic nuclear cooperation is profoundly at risk. Russia’s alleged INF Treaty violation has soured already strained relations between the world’s largest nuclear powers. Yet, the United States and Russia continue to share a common interest in ensuring nuclear stability worldwide. Together, the countries possess over 90 percent of the planet’s roughly 15,000 nuclear weapons. This power carries a responsibility to rejuvenate cooperative initiatives that reduce nuclear risks dating back to the depths of the Cold War. To effectively evaluate the opportunities and challenges involved in that objective, U.S. policymakers must understand Russia’s current nuclear force policy and strategy. This policy paper examines Moscow’s nuclear doctrine, capabilities and modernization efforts, the status of U.S.-Russian arms control treaties, and the primary obstacles to cooperation. It concludes by offering a set of recommendations for both mitigating threats to strategic stability and resuming a productive U.S.-Russian arms control dialogue.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Cold War, International Law, Nuclear Weapons, Military Affairs, Nuclear Power, and INF Treaty
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

7. Empowering Congress on Nuclear Security: Blueprints for a New Generation

Author:
Jack Brosnan, Andrew Semmel, Nathan Sermonis, and Kingston Reif
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
The global nuclear security enterprise is at a critical crossroads. While the worldwide use of nuclear and radioactive materials has grown, the issue of nuclear security has all but faded from the U.S. national conversation. As these materials become more widespread, they will be vulnerable to criminal and terrorist organizations without sufficient security efforts. This report reveals a concerning loss of congressional leadership and interest in critical efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. While the threat grows more complex, U.S. funding, oversight, and international cooperation to secure nuclear and radiological materials has diminished. By analyzing historic bipartisan initiatives and current congressional staff attitudes on nuclear security, this report offers an important blueprint to revitalize U.S. leadership through Capitol Hill. Providing recommended action items and effective strategies for engaging Congress, the report is a useful tool for both policymakers and educators.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Government, National Security, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States

8. Resuming Negotiations with North Korea

Author:
Elizabeth Philipp
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
The window of opportunity to prevent North Korea from fielding nuclear-armed ballistic missiles is closing. Diplomatic engagement with North Korea has been scant in recent years. In response to Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests, the United States and other countries, through actions of the United Nations Security Council and independent policies, have adopted an approach of increasing political and economic isolation. Yet, during this time, Pyongyang has improved its nuclear weapons capability quantitatively and qualitatively. The next presidential administration must prioritize reviewing and renewing Washington’s diplomatic approach to North Korea. With each successive nuclear and missile test, North Korea advances its knowledge and consolidates its capability. History has shown that it is far easier to convince North Korea to negotiate away a military capability it does not yet possess. Washington’s stated primary concern is a North Korean nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Pyongyang will achieve this capability if it is not reined in through a diplomatic agreement or understanding. Once Pyongyang achieves this status, the security balance in Asia will be disrupted and U.S. diplomats will be hard-pressed to convince North Korea to abandon the capability.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, Military Affairs, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
United States and North Korea

9. North Korea’s Nuclear Threat: How to Halt Its Slow but Steady Advance

Author:
Greg Thielmann
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
In the first five weeks of 2016, North Korea twice defied UN Security Council resolutions designed to stem its pursuit of nuclear weapons. On January 6, it conducted its fourth underground nuclear test; on February 7, it launched a satellite into space for the second time. These two events provided a vivid reminder that North Korea continues to make progress mastering the technology needed for developing long-range ballistic missiles and arming them with nuclear warheads. U.S. leaders have long sought to formulate and implement policies that would secure a denuclearized Korean peninsula, but these efforts have not been successful. U.S. political commentary on North Korea vacillates between taking at face value the regime’s exaggerated claims of technological prowess and reducing its leadership to cartoonish stereotypes. A clearer understanding of North Korea’s motives and the current status of its nuclear and missile programs can lead to a more realistic strategy for enhancing U.S. security. That strategy would involve using enhanced sanctions as leverage for achieving a halt in North Korea’s nuclear and missile testing and production of fissile material, but this can only happen through negotiations.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, International Security, Military Affairs, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
United States and North Korea

10. Iran Nuclear Policy Brief: An Effective, Verifiable Nuclear Deal With Iran

Author:
Kelsey Davenport and Daryl G. Kimball
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
The P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have finalized a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran that will verifiably block Iran's pathways to nuclear weapons development--the uranium-enrichment route and the plutonium-separation route--and guard against a clandestine weapons program. We assess that the final agreement will be a net-plus for nonproliferation and will enhance U.S. and regional security. This two-page Iran Nuclear Policy Brief examines the key provisions and benefits of a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Nuclear Power, and Uranium
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

11. The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Monumental Mistake by the Obama Administration or a New Beginning?

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
The nuclear deal reached between Iran and the P5+1, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, will be scrutinized by diplomats, military experts and politicians for months and years to come. Statesmen and politicians will interpret the deal differently and each will vie to use the argument which suites the audience and the domestic base she/he represents. However, the psychological, economic, political, and military implications of the deal on the United States, Europe and many Middle Eastern countries will be monumental. The deal will impact the balance of power in the Middle East and will change its dynamics forever, change the dynamics of the energy markets in Europe, Thus creating tension between Russia and Europe, and will ignite a fierce security debate between Democrats and Republicans in the United States on the culture of regime change and the use of force. The deal will bring the subject of regime change to the political forefront in the US and will raise a serious question on whether the use of force is the only effective mechanism to change the behavior of states in order to achieve favorable outcomes. Both Republicans and Democrats used force as a tool for regime change, however the Obama administration is a advocating for new means: diplomacy.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Regime Change, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom, Iran, Middle East, France, and Germany

12. Why China Won't Abandon Its Nuclear Strategy of Assured Retaliation

Author:
Fiona S. Cunningham and M. Taylor Fravel
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Whether China will abandon its long-standing nuclear strategy of assured retaliation for a first-use posture will be a critical factor in U.S.-China strategic stability. In recent years, the United States has been developing strategic capabilities such as missile defenses and conventional long-range strike capabilities that could reduce the effectiveness of China's deterrent. Writings by Chinese strategists and analysts, however, indicate that China is unlikely to abandon its current nuclear strategy.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Military Strategy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, China, and East Asia

13. States Will Not Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists

Author:
Daryl Press and Keir A. Lieber
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Nuclear terrorism is often described as the single biggest threat to U.S. national security. The fear is that a hostile state could surreptitiously transfer a nuclear weapon or fissile material to a like-minded terror group, thus orchestrating a devastating attack on the United States or its allies while remaining anonymous and avoiding retaliation. This fear served as a key justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and it helps drive current arguments in favor of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Iran

14. A more in-depth, technical Q from Siegfried Hecker on North Korea

Author:
Siegfried S. Hecker
Publication Date:
04-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University
Abstract:
North Korea announced on April 2, 2013, that it would restart its nuclear facilities, including its 5 megawatt-electric (MWe) nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, north of the capital, which had been disabled and mothballed since an agreement in October 2007.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, and North Korea

15. Great Expectations: Iran's New President and the Nuclear Talks

Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
In a region that recently has produced virtually nothing but bad news, Hassan Rouhani's 4 August swearing in as Iran's president offers a rare and welcome glimmer of hope. There are still far more questions than answers: about the extent of his authority; his views on his country's nuclear program, with which he long has been associated; and the West's ability to display requisite flexibility and patience. But, although both sides can be expected to show caution, now is the time to put more ambitious proposals on the table, complement the multilateral talks with a bilateral U.S.-Iranian channel and expand the dialogue to encompass regional security issues.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Democratization, Diplomacy, Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

16. Making the Case: Stopping Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program

Author:
Mieke Eoyang and Aki Peritz
Publication Date:
03-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
The U.S. is currently leading a multinational effort to squeeze Iran and force them to give up its weapons program. Here's how to make the case for that approach and why it makes sense: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Sanctions are working—they are wrecking the Iranian economy—but they need more time to have their full impact. We can blunt Iran's capabilities by strengthening our allies' missile defense systems. Military strikes now could exacerbate the problem, but all options must remain on the table.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and North America

17. The Political Kaleidoscope Turns Again in Crisis-Challenged Iran: 2013 Elections

Author:
Barbara Slavin and Yasmin Alem
Publication Date:
05-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Iran has never had what the West would regard as free, fair, and competitive elections. Some would point to the brief periods following the 1906 Constitutional Revolution and between the end of World War II and 1953, when a CIA-backed coup re-installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as possible exceptions to this rule. The upcoming presidential elections this June will be no such exception, with candidates restricted to eight proven loyalists to the regime. Nevertheless, the vote will be an important barometer of the stability and durability of an embattled regime that is increasingly unpopular domestically and isolated internationally. The elections will also produce a new turn of the kaleidoscope within Iran's shrinking political elite, as existing factions break apart and regroup. The next president is likely to be more moderate in tone, if not in policy, and more competent and less divisive than the outgoing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This could have important implications not just for the country's domestic course but for Iran's confrontation with the United States and the international community over the nuclear question.
Topic:
International Relations, Democratization, Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States and Middle East

18. Zero: The Surprising and Unambiguous Policy Relevance of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Author:
Janet M. Lang and James G. Blight
Publication Date:
10-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Herman Kahn was one of the most eminent nuclear strategists of the early Cold War period. He advised Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy while working at the RAND Corporation, and also wrote one of the most controversial bestsellers of the era, Thinking about the Unthinkable. Reading it is shocking even today, as one encounters the concepts Kahn made famous, such as megadeath (a nuclear war killing tens or hundreds of millions of people); escalation dominance (threatening to blow up the world if an adversary does not relent); the doomsday machine (US-Soviet nuclear arsenals that, if used, would blow up the world, no matter what leaders might desire); and use 'em or lose 'em (striking first in a nuclear war to destroy the enemy's forces). No wonder the title role in Stanley Kubrick's black satiric film Dr. Strangelove (1964) is reportedly based on the real Herman Kahn. But Kahn himself always said he was merely being realistic, facing directly the terrifying new reality created by the existence of the ultimate weapon.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and Cuba

19. Beyond Treaties: Immediate Steps to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

Author:
James M. Acton
Publication Date:
10-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The U.S. political parties are divided on nuclear weapons policy. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have reached an arms control impasse and no new agreement is on the horizon. Confidence-building measures could help reduce nuclear risks between the United States and Russia, advancing the goals of both countries and both U.S. presidential candidates.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

20. The Path Towards Kazakhstan's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy: Convergence of US-Kazakh Interests

Author:
Douglas Townsend
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Upon its conclusion in December 2011, the main part of the sixty-sixth United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 66) session adopted forty-seven resolutions and five decisions in its continuing effort to encourage a more flexible approach to revitalizing the multilateral disarmament process.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, International Trade and Finance, Nuclear Weapons, Bilateral Relations, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States and Central Asia

21. It's Time to Put the Nuclear Issue Behind Us: The Chicago Summit Has More Urgent Priorities than Nuclear Theology

Author:
Kori Schake, Lord Robertson, and Franklin C. Miller
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Slightly over two years ago, NATO was embroiled in an internal controversy of its own creation which bore within it the seeds of a deep crisis within the Alliance. Several governments, impelled by a heady mix of domestic politics and a newly fashionable interest in nuclear disarmament among certain elites, actively sought the removal of US nuclear weapons from the European portion of the Alliance. In doing so, they raised serious questions about their adherence to the central core of the Alliance: the Article 5 guarantee.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, NATO, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and North America

22. China-North Korea: Renewal of the "Blood Alliance"

Author:
Masako Ikegami
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
As North Korea's latest rocket-missile launch approaches, there is speculation whether Beijing can halt Pyongyang's missile ambitions. In my view, Beijing will turn a blind eye towards North Korea's latest provocation, while simultaneously calling for restraint by all parties. Recently, the China-North Korea “blood alliance,” a concept of allies that originated during the Korean War, has been renewed, and it is in China's interests that North Korea consolidates its “absolute deterrence” capability to deter US forces in the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, China, and North Korea

23. Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and the Nuclear-Weapon States

Author:
Peter Crail and Xiaodon Liang
Publication Date:
02-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Following a decade-long impasse, the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) is finally on a path to being endorsed by the world's five recognized nuclear-weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Agreement by these nuclear powers to respect the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia and to provide legal assurances that they will not use such weapons against zone members helps to strengthen the commitment by regional states not to pursue nuclear weapons, and contributes more broadly to global nonproliferation and disarmament efforts,
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom, France, and Southeast Asia

24. Where Do We Stand in the Field of Nuclear Disarmament: What Is Next After the New START

Author:
Nurşin Ateşoğlu Güney
Publication Date:
06-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT)
Abstract:
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement, without any doubt, has started a new debate on whether the international community has finally entered a renaissance in the field of disarmament after a long period of stalemate. In this regard, the New START agreement, together with the New York Nuclear Safety Summit of 2010 and the NPT Review Conference of 2010, seems to be creating a rather positive atmosphere. Yet, if one examines the discussions that took place at the US and the Russian parliament's before and after the ratification of the New START, he/she will come to the conclusion that the progress on nuclear disarmament, at the levels of both strategic and nonstrategic weapons, will not be an easy one. The situation will remain unchanged unless certain contentious military issues between Washington and Moscow are somehow resolved. In this regard, the next round of the New START agreement will be crucial. This situation will not only affect the future of the US and the Russian militaries' relationships to one another, but it will also change the balance of relations among the nuclear “haves” and “have nots” of the NPT Treaty. It is, therefore, expected that the NPT's two tracks, namely disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, will be affected either in a positive or negative way in the future, depending on the evolution of the post New START era. Within this perspective, the possibility that US and Russia will implement new disarmament agreements has gained utmost importance in the aftermath of the New START for the future implications of the US President Barack Obama's “Global Zero Policy.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, and New York

25. Attacks on Nuclear Infrastructure: Opening Pandora's Box?

Author:
Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Advocates argue that air strikes against the nuclear infrastructure of a targeted state can deny it the option of producing nuclear weapons or at least create delays in its nuclear weapons program. Critics counter that such attacks may intensify the state's determination to acquire nuclear weapons and make a difficult problem more challenging in the long term. Despite the apparent appeal of targeted strikes, states rarely resort to them.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and Iraq

26. Bleak Outlook for 2011 Conference on Disarmament

Author:
Brian Rose
Publication Date:
01-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
The 2011 Conference on Disarmament (CD) began contentiously when Ambassador Zamir Akram, Pakistan\'s permanent representative to the United Nations, criticized United States\' support of India\'s membership in export organizations that would allow it to engage in nuclear trade. Pakistan believes such membership would further favor India and accentuate the asymmetry in fissile materials stockpiles of the two states. Strategic and security concerns drive Pakistan\'s commitment to block negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty. Progress during the CD seems unlikely if the United States and Pakistan remain entrenched in their respective positions.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, India, and Asia

27. The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use

Author:
Michael S. Gerson
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Despite heightened expectations for significant change in U.S. nuclear policy—especially declaratory policy— the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review changes little from the past. The NPR's declaratory policy retains the option for the United States to use nuclear weapons first in a variety of circumstances, including in a first strike against Chinese, North Korean, Russian, and (perhaps) future Iranian nuclear forces. Equally important, the United States can threaten the first use of nuclear weapons to deter and, if necessary, respond, to a variety of nonnuclear contingencies, including large-scale conventional aggression by another nuclear power such as China or Russia and chemical or biological weapons (CBW) attacks from states such as Iran and North Korea.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and North Korea

28. Iran Sanctions: Preferable to War but No Silver Bullet

Author:
Barbara Slavin
Publication Date:
06-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The broadest and toughest sanctions regime imposed on any country except Libya has not convinced Iran's leaders to abandon a program that appears aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Instead of seeking even more crippling economic penalties—such as an oil embargo—that would fracture the international consensus on Iran, the United States should tighten implementation of measures already in force and enact more sanctions linked to human rights, which have a wide constituency in Europe and demonstrate to the Iranian people that international concerns extend beyond nuclear weapons. The U.S. should also work with its diplomatic partners to craft new proposals that would couple acceptance of limited uranium enrichment with rigorous international monitoring, and encourage China, Iran's major trading partner, to use its leverage in support of nonproliferation.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, Nuclear Weapons, Sanctions, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Iran

29. Too Little, Too Late? Nuclear Security and the Middle East

Author:
Simon Henderson, George Perkovich, and Gregory Schulte
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
A year ago in Prague, President Obama warned that nuclear terrorism poses "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." Accordingly, he vowed to lead an international effort to "secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years." The Nuclear Security Summit is intended to advance that goal
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, and Vienna

30. Ahmadinezhad's Bomb Rhetoric: Opportunities for U.S. Policy

Author:
Patrick Clawson
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On July 31, according to Iran's semiofficial Mehr News Agency, presidential chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashai claimed that the West had raised no objections to President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad's open proclamation that the Islamic Republic could build a nuclear bomb. How should this surprising claim be interpreted? And what implications might it hold for Iran's domestic politics, especially when viewed alongside Ahmadinezhad's history of confrontational rhetoric?
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Politics, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

31. Internal Divisions among Iranian Hardliners Come to the Fore

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
During an August 9 visit to Syria, Ali Akbar Velayati, influential advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that Iran is ready to negotiate with the United States regarding its nuclear program. Yesterday, however, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast announced that Iran has no plans for bilateral negotiation with Washington. These and other conflicting signals point to deep internal divisions among former allies in Iran's hardline camp. Such divisions are part of a longstanding pattern in the Islamic Republic: as soon as one faction seizes power by cutting out its opponents, it splits into warring parties.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Syria

32. Going Critical: Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Reactor Starts Up

Author:
Simon Henderson and Stefanie Peterson
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
At a ceremony near the southern Iranian coastal city of Bushehr this Saturday, Russia will begin the process of loading fuel rods into Iran's first civilian nuclear reactor. Theoretically distinct from the rest of the regime's disturbing nuclear program, the Bushehr plant nevertheless remains a major international concern. The low-enriched uranium in the fuel rods would, if diverted, substantially increase Iran's existing stock of the material, which many suspect is already being used to develop nuclear weapons. Even if they were used solely for electricity generation, the rods would eventually produce plutonium-rich residue that could also be reprocessed for use in a weapon. For Iran, the Bushehr event will be a gesture of defiance against U.S.-led international pressure; for Russia, a sign of Moscow's different diplomatic approach to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran; and for the United States, an exception to the tightening sanctions regime, which officials claim is forcing Tehran to reconsider the wisdom of its policies.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Asia, and Moscow

33. President Obama's Cairo Speech: A First-Year Scorecard

Author:
J. Scott Carpenter and Dina Guirguis
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Although likely eclipsed in the media by recent Israeli naval action against blockade runners, the first anniversary of President Obama's much-quoted address in Cairo occurs on June 4. In his remarks, described as a "new beginning," he identified seven issues at the heart of tensions between the United States and the world's 1.2 billion Muslims: the need to confront violent extremism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom, women's rights, and economic development. For each issue, the president indicated where American action was required. On violent extremism, for instance, he highlighted his decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center within the year. Given that two issues -- the Arab-Israeli peace process and Iranian nuclear issue -- have garnered the lion's share of attention over the past year, it is timely and useful to assess progress on the other five.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Israel, and Egypt

34. Three Critical Weeks in the Middle East: Insights into U.S. Policy

Author:
Robert Satloff
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
It is important to recall that the Gaza incident had the unintended consequence of wiping from the headlines much discussion about the U.S. decision to accede to the final resolution of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. Indeed, if Gaza had not occurred, there would be much more intense focus on how the decision to acquiesce in a deeply flawed NPT document gave clarity to the administration's priorities.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and Israel

35. The U.S.-UAE Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: A Gold Standard or Fool's Gold?

Author:
Fred McGoldrick
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
It is hard to know what is more disturbing — Iran's continued defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions ordering Tehran to cease its uranium enrichment activities and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or the tour that North Korea recently gave to U.S. scientists of its new uranium enrichment plant. Policymakers fear that these programs will enable these states to produce more fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and Arabia

36. Missile Defense in NATO: A French Perspective

Author:
Bruno Gruselle
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
In France, missile defense comes with a long and complicated history. When the U.S. Congress passed the "National Missile Defense Act of 1999," which called for the development and deployment of a U.S. national missile defense system, Paris reacted negatively. At that time, France still considered missile defense to be both unnecessary and destabilizing. French policy makers still considered the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction to be the cornerstones of strategic stability. French thinkers viewed missile defense as jeopardizing both the doctrine and the Treaty, as well as risking a new arms race with Russia.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, France, and North America

37. A New Direction for U.S. Policy in the Caspian Region

Author:
Martha Brill Olcott
Publication Date:
02-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
With Washington's influence on the Caspian region at its lowest ebb in many years, the Obama administration could reverse this trend with a new approach that accepts Russia's presence and China's interest as historical and geographical givens and emphasizes short- and medium-term problem solving in multilateral and bilateral settings instead of long-term political and economic transformations. The United States can accomplish more in the Caspian region by focusing on military reform and building security capacity than on forming military alliances. The United States should switch from a multiple pipeline strategy to a policy that advances competition by promoting market pricing for energy producers, consumers, and transit states. The United States could facilitate the introduction of renewable sources of energy as a stimulus to economic recovery and a source of enhanced social security. The United States should develop a nuanced strategy that encourages political development through social and educational programs and local capacity building. The Obama administration should name a high-level official as a presidential envoy to this region.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Development, Economics, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Washington, and Central Asia

38. The Russian Handicap to U.S. Iran Policy

Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
There are voices in the Obama Administration who believe that the Kremlin is able and willing to exert pressure on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, perceived geopolitical and economic benefits in the unstable Persian Gulf, in which American influence is on the wane, outweigh Russia's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran. The Kremlin sees Iran not as a threat but as a partner or an ad-hoc ally to challenge U.S. influence. Today, both Russia and Iran favor a strategy of "multipolarity," both in the Middle East and worldwide. This strategy seeks to dilute American power, revise current international financial institutions, and weaken or neuter NATO and the OSCE, while forging a counterbalance to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Russian technological aid is evident throughout the Iranian missile and space programs. Russian scientists and expertise have played a direct and indirect role in these programs for years. According to some reports, Russian specialists are helping to develop the longer-range Shahab-5, and Russia has exported missile production facilities to Iran. Moscow has signed a contract to sell advanced long-range S-300 air-defense systems to Iran. Once Iran has air defenses to repel Israeli or American air strikes and nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles, it will possess the capacity to destroy Israel (an openly stated goal of the regime) and strike targets throughout the Middle East, in Europe, and the Indian subcontinent. Beyond that, if and when an ICBM capability is achieved, Tehran will be able to threaten the U.S. homeland directly. Given the substantial Russian interests and ambitions, any grand bargain would almost certainly require an excessively high price paid by the United States to the detriment of its friends and allies. Russia simply does not view the situation through the same lens as the U.S.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East

39. U.S.-Iranian Engagement: The View from Tehran

Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
For perhaps the first time since Iran and the U.S. broke ties in 1980, there are real prospects for fundamental change. The new U.S. president, Barack Obama, stated willingness to talk unconditionally. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, implicitly blessed dialogue, and presidential candidates are vying to prove they would be the most effective interlocutor. Yet, while U.S. objectives and tactics are relatively familiar, little is known of Iran's thinking, even as much is assumed. Western interaction with its opaque political system and decision-making has both shrivelled and been narrowly focused on the nuclear file. Under-standing Iran's perspective is critical if engagement is to succeed. This briefing, based on meetings with officials and analysts, seeks to shed light on what Tehran thinks about dialogue, its goals and visions of a future relationship. It concludes that while full normalisation might be out of reach for now, there is a chance to achieve a more realistic objective: the start of a long-term dialogue that minimises risks of confrontation and advances areas of mutual interest.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Tehran

40. Inside Iranian Politics and Nuclear Strategy: A G-20 Briefing

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji and Stephen P. Rosen
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Studying the behavior of states with nuclear weapons may give some insight into what Iran would do if it acquires nuclear weapons capabilities. Every state that has nuclear weapons, with the exception of India, has shared the technology and the know-how -- not the weapons -- with other states: the United States shared technology with Great Britain and then, in the 1950s, provided nuclear weapons for German fighter jets on German bases flown by German pilots; Israel and France shared nuclear energy technology in the 1960s;China assisted Pakistan; North Korea aided Syria; and Pakistan assisted many countries through the A. Q.Khan network. In short, states transfer nuclear technology because it is easy to accomplish, difficult to track, and returns very high rewards.
Topic:
Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and North Korea

41. Quds Day in Iran: Velvet Revolution Trumps Nuclear Negotiations

Author:
Patrick Clawson and Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
While the United States is concentrating on the G-20 summit and the October 1 meeting with the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Iranian attention has been focused on the potentially destabilizing protests planned for September 18, Quds Day. This critical difference of agenda -- with Iran focused more on its domestic turmoil than on simmering international issues -- will be a major complicating factor in negotiations between the international community and Iran in the coming weeks.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, International Cooperation, Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

42. Broadening the U.S. Approach on Iran

Author:
Michael Singh
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
With Iran's September 14 acceptance of a meeting with the P5+1 countries on October 1, the Obama administration finally appears poised to engage in direct talks with Iran. In entering these talks, Washington faces two obstacles: first, Iran's reputation for recalcitrance in negotiations and its stated refusal to discuss the nuclear issue, upon which American concerns center; and second, the perception that the administration is lending legitimacy to a regime fresh from violent repression of its political opponents.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Washington, and Middle East

43. Engagement or Consequences: Getting the Iran Message Right

Author:
Michael Singh
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
A number of top U.S. national security officials are visiting Israel this week, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, and Iran will surely be at the top of their agenda. With Iran making steady progress toward nuclear weapons capability and remaining silent on the U.S. offer to negotiate, and with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran looming ever closer, U.S. officials' public message on the consequences for Iran should engagement fail will draw close scrutiny. Although the Obama administration appears to understand the need for serious consequences, its public messaging on this point has been uneven, blunting its effectiveness.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Diplomacy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

44. New 'Arab Street' Polls: United States Gaining Ground, Iran Losing

Author:
David Pollock
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Several new polls suggest that the United States is gaining ground in the Arab street, and that President Barack Obama's latest overtures, specifically his June 4 speech in Cairo, were well received by some important Arab constituencies. Although a great deal of skepticism remains, students of Arab public opinion would regard these numbers as surprisingly encouraging. In contrast, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad's popularity has slipped dramatically in the Arab world, with many saying that the outcome of Iran's recent presidential election will hurt the region. Approximately half of the Arabs questioned even agree that "if Iran does not accept new restrictions and more international oversight of its nuclear program, the Arabs should support stronger sanctions against Iran around the end of this year."
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Arabia

45. Beyond Zero Enrichment: Suggestions for an Iranian Nuclear Deal

Author:
Matthew Bunn
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The United States and the other members of the P5+1 are struggling to launch the first in-depth negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program in which the United States has participated. The United States comes to the table with few good options. Sanctions have failed to change Iran's decisions about its nuclear program, and no feasible set of sanctions (given the limits of what China, Russia, and others will agree to) is likely to convince Iran to give up its enrichment program. Military strikes against Iran would probably not set back Iran's program for longer than a brief period and would greatly increase Iran's incentive to go straight to the bomb at covert sites (as Iraq did after Israel destroyed its facilities at Osiraq).
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and Middle East

46. PolicyWatch #1330: Domestic Issues Trump Foreign Policy in Iran

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
At each stop on his recent Middle East tour, President Bush centered his foreign policy agenda on the growing threat from Iran. But inside the Islamic Republic, domestic policies -- and not the international issues that Bush highlighted -- are at the center of political debate.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Intelligence, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

47. PolicyWatch #1324: Raising the Costs for Tehran

Author:
Michael Jacobson
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
In the wake of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, questions are being raised as to whether sanctions and financial pressure remain a viable approach to changing Tehran's decisionmaking on its nuclear program. As evidence of this strategy's demise, critics point to the foundering attempts to negotiate a third round of UN sanctions against Iran -- sanctions that appeared imminent before the NIE's publication. While additional punitive measures by the UN are important and necessary, better enforcement of the various sanctions regimes already in place could have an equally significant impact.
Topic:
Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

48. Iran Says “No”—Now What?

Author:
George Perkovich
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Neither Iran nor the United States can achieve all it wants in the current nuclear standoff. Iran has demonstrated its unwillingness to comply with IAEA and UN Security Council demands to cease its enrichment activities or to negotiate seriously toward that end. The United States and other interlocutors should offer Iran a last chance to negotiate a suspension of its enrichment program until the IAEA can resolve outstanding issues in return for substantial incentives. If that package were rejected, the P-5 plus Germany should withdraw the incentives and commit to maintaining sanctions as long as Iran does not comply with IAEA demands. Simultaneously, the U.S. should take force “off the table” as long as Iran is not newly found to be seeking nuclear weapons or committing aggression.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Organization, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

49. NUCLEAR FUEL BANKS: Moscow, Washington to Lead on "Mergers"

Author:
Danila Bochkarev
Publication Date:
07-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EastWest Institute
Abstract:
The United States and Russia are still the giants of nuclear power, accounting for more than half the world's enriched uranium production. Twenty-five percent of the world's nuclear power plants are found in the United States and half of those power plants use Russian uranium. Russian nuclear fuel now constitutes 10 percent of the U.S. power generation mix. The interdependence arising from existing trade in nuclear fuel points toward a natural partnership.
Topic:
International Cooperation, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and International Security
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

50. Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Why the United States Should Lead

Author:
George Perkovich
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The next American president should emphasize the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and really mean it. The verification and enforcement mechanisms that would be required to achieve this would augment U.S. and global security at a time when the nuclear industry will likely expand globally. Without a clearer commitment to the elimination of all nuclear arsenals, non–nuclear-weapon states will not support strengthened nonproliferation rules, inspections, and controls over fissile materials. The accounting and control over nuclear materials that would be necessary to enable nuclear disarmament would greatly reduce risks that terrorists could acquire these materials. If nuclear deterrence would work everywhere and always, we would not worry about proliferation. If nuclear deterrence is not fail-safe, the long-term answer must be to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons to zero.
Topic:
Government, Nuclear Weapons, Peace Studies, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States and America

51. Pakistan—Conflicted Ally in the War on Terror

Author:
Ashley Tellis
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Many Americans have blamed the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban on Pakistan's lackluster performance in the war on terror. Islamabad has indeed been ambivalent, but the convulsive political deterioration in the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, Islamabad's military ineptitude in counterterrorism operations, and the political failures of the Karzai government in Afghanistan have all exacerbated the problem. Making U.S. aid conditional on Pakistan's performance in the war or undertaking unilateral strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan would inflate suspicion of Washington's motives, and risk casting Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state, as an American adversary. U.S. policy must instead convince Pakistani elites that defeating terrorist groups serves their own interest, while emphasizing that a terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan would push Washington to adopt more painful tactics.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, America, Washington, Asia, and Taliban

52. PolicyWatch #1313: How Much Does Weaponization Matter? Judging Iran's Nuclear Program

Author:
Patrick Clawson
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The just-released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," is about weaponization, not the enrichment and fuel cycle issues that have been the focus of multiple UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board resolutions regarding Iran's nuclear program. The NIE only suggests that Tehran has changed its sequence -- something that does not slow the country's progress toward a nuclear weapon by a single day. Therefore, it is not clear how this report affects the current thrust of U.S. policy: to stem Iran's nuclear fuel cycle capabilities.
Topic:
Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

53. Stopping a nuclear arms race between America and China

Author:
Hugh White
Publication Date:
08-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
Australia's interests in a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific region are threatened by the risk of intensifying strategic nuclear competition between the US and China. This may seem a little surprising in the post-Cold War world. We have perhaps allowed ourselves to assume a little too easily that nuclear weapons ceased to matter much in relations between major powers after the Cold War was over. We have worried much more about the risk that they will be acquired by new players – rogue states or terrorists – who might not respond to the incentives and threats that shaped nuclear strategy between major powers during the Cold War.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and Australia

54. The Defense Monitor, Primed and ready

Author:
Philip E. Coyle, Whitney Parker, Bruce Blair, and Brian Ellison
Publication Date:
05-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
American And Russian political rhetoric attaches the highest priority to imposing ironclad control over their nuclear arsenals. The two nations cooperate extensively and devote substantial resources to achieving this aim, but both nations are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing hoary cold War priorities to take precedence. The anachronistic mind-set of the cold Warrior still dominates their nuclear establishments, their agendas, and their relationship in ways that deeply undermine their efforts to contain “loose nukes.” They spend 25 times more money to preserve their c old War nuclear deterrent postures than they spend on shoring up security against theft.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Cold War, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, America, Europe, and Asia

55. The Defense Monitor, U.S. Missile Defenses in Europe: The Putin Alternative

Author:
Philip E. Coyle, Whitney Parker, Theresa Hitchens, and Richard May
Publication Date:
07-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
At the G-8 Summit in early June, the difficulties and complexities of proposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe were on full display. In the weeks preceding the G-8 Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin had set the Bush administration – and the world – back on its heels with talk of Russian missiles aimed at Europe in retaliation for proposed U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. This set the stage for what the Bush administration thought might be a G-8 confrontation over its proposed missile defense system. Then, on June 7, Putin proposed a smart missile defense technical and policy solution that the Pentagon should have thought of first: establishing a missile defense radar site at the existing Qabala early warning radar station in Azerbaijan.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Asia

56. Ahmadinezhad's Popularity One Year On

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
07-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Westerners believe Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad to be popular in Iran, in no small part because of his strong support for Iran's nuclear program. However, there is much evidence to the contrary. There is limited information available with which to form a judgment about the popularity of any politician or political program in Iran. The government forbids any independent opinion polling on matters as ordinary as the raging problem of drug addiction, let alone sensitive issues like negotiations with the United States or the nuclear program. The main sources of information for Western media are the statements and photographs that come from Iranian state media, or other Western journalists who go to Iran but cannot work freely in the face of government controls. The Western newsmedia has taken the massive turnouts at demonstrations in support of Ahmadinezhad and his nuclear policy as evidence of popular support for both. But the size of such demonstrations has no meaning beyond illustrating the efficiency of the regime's propaganda machine. Unfortunately, Western media take this propaganda for the truth. The Iranian regime has nearly succeeded in fashioning its own image and imposing it on its critics. Official results show Ahmadinezhad was elected by only 35 percent of eligible voters—in an election that was not free and fair, according to many top Iranian officials. Most of Ahmadinezhad's support came from rural regions and the poorer classes of Iranian society; these voters hoped that Ahmadinezhad's election would reduce corruption and raise their standard of living. Today there are clear signs of dissatisfaction within these constituencies. The evidence comes from independent journalists, blogs, and independent Iranian news websites which have reported increasing discontent with Ahmadinezhad's domestic policies.
Topic:
Government, Nuclear Weapons, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

57. Facing Iran's Challenge: Safeguarding Oil Exports from the Persian Gulf

Author:
Simon Henderson
Publication Date:
06-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
In a June 4 speech marking the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a warning to the United States in the crisis of over Iran's nuclear program. “If the Americans make a wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger, and the Americans would not be able to protect energy supply in the region,” Khamenei said. This raises questions about the strength of the Iranian military and how the United States could counter it, using military power, alternative export routes, or a combination of both.
Topic:
Energy Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

58. Perils and Promise of U.S.-Iranian Negotiations

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
05-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On May 7, Lebanese Druze leader and member of parliament Walid Jumblat told reporters in Cairo that Hizballah should disarm. These comments came just four days after Jumblat offered his assistance to the Syrian opposition in establishing "a democratic and free Syria." Jumblat has always been an enigmatic and unpredictable interlocutor, and his recent statements on Syria and Hizballah typify his disregard for the conventions of the Lebanese political establishment. While many Lebanese may quietly support Jumblat's truth telling, his statements are sure to increase his list of powerful enemies.
Topic:
International Relations and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Syria

59. Assessing the Iranian Nuclear Threat with Reference to Pakistan's Experience

Author:
Simon Henderson
Publication Date:
05-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On April 30, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan had warned U.S. officials during a secret visit to Washington of covert Iranian plans for enriching uranium, which may mean Tehran was "nearer to acquiring nuclear weapons than widely believed." The same report quoted Knesset Foreign and Defense Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz as saying that Iran might be only a year from developing a bomb. Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed ElBaradei is on the record as saying that, once Iran can enrich uranium in quantity, making an actual bomb would only take "a few months." And, in August 2005, the Washington Post reported that the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate "projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing [sufficient highly enriched uranium] for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years." In such circumstances it is small wonder if the public is confused, wondering whether some officials are exaggerating the potential danger of a nuclear-armed Iran while others seem to be almost irresponsibly unconcerned. In fact, the statements above are not mutually inconsistent, reflecting instead the discrepancy between hard fact and plausible interpretation. Since Iran's controversial uranium enrichment technology was initially acquired from Pakistan, an examination of that country's progress toward a nuclear bomb is both worthwhile and illuminating.
Topic:
Security and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, Iran, Washington, Middle East, and Tehran

60. Preventing Turkey's Popular Slide away from the West

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Iran's nuclear program presents one more issue on which Washington sees Middle East developments in a different light than does the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey. Since coming to power in November 2002, AKP leaders have pursued rapprochement with Damascus and enhanced dialogue with Iran. In March 2006, the AKP welcomed Hamas leaders in Ankara. It is surprising that Turkey, a traditional bastion of Western policies in the Middle East, is promoting close ties with anti-Western actors that have hurt Turkey for decades—Syria provided safe haven to the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Iran supported the PKK and radical Islamist terrorists. Why do the Turkish people not resent such policies? The Iraq war and the U.S. agenda for political transformation in the Middle East have clashed with the Turkish people's desire to preserve the Middle Eastern political landscape. What is more, U.S. inaction against the PKK's Qandil enclave in Northern Iraq is angering most Turks in the way Syrian and Iranian support for the PKK upset them in the 1990s. Turkish confusion and anger toward the United States stands in sharp contrast with the improved image of Syria and Iran in Turkey. Meanwhile, with AKP discussing Middle Eastern politics in terms of Islamic codes, some Turks now identify with the region through Islam and not their national identity. The challenge for Washington is to find a way to prevent Turkey's popular slide away from the United States.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Washington, Turkey, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Syria

61. Miscommunication between Iranian Society and the West on Iran's Nuclear Program

Author:
Mehdi Khalaji
Publication Date:
02-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
In recent months, the growing controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program and Western suspicions about the military intentions of the Iranian regime has reached a crucial phase. A serious problem for the Western campaign to press the Islamic Republic about its nuclear program is that Iranian society has been indifferent or hostile to the West's efforts. The United States in particular needs to find ways to reenergize its outreach to Iranian society.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

62. Defense Monitor, Not What We Were Hoping For

Author:
Philip E. Coyle, Whitney Parker, Rachel Stohl, Winslow Wheeler, Victoria Samson, and Theresa Hitchens
Publication Date:
11-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
For decades, the U.S. Air Force has promoted the F-22 as its fighter for the 21st century. Advocates tout its technical features: fuel efficient, high speed “super-cruise,” advanced electronics, and reduced profile against enemy sensors, known as “stealth.” While those are popular amenities, the measures that really determine winning or losing in air combat have been overlooked by the Air Force. The F-22 fails to improve America's fighter force and degrades our combat capability.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States

63. The Defense Monitor: Congress Steps Back From Nukes

Author:
Victoria Samson
Publication Date:
01-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The United States just took one small step away from the brink. Congress has opted against funding research for a nuclear weapon that would target underground bunkers. This decision squelched a program that would likely have created a new nuclear warhead, something that is particularly incongruous at a time when nations around the world are fervently trying to convince the leaderships of North Korea and Iran that their countries do not need nuclear weapons. However, this wisdom on the part of the U.S. government may prove to be temporary.
Topic:
Government, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Asia, and North Korea

64. Pyongyang 1, Bush 0

Author:
John Feffer
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Five years ago, when George W. Bush took office, North Korea didn't claim membership in the nuclear club. Its plutonium reprocessing facilities were frozen. It was even willing to negotiate away its missile program.
Topic:
International Relations and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, and North Korea

65. A Double Standard on Nuclear Weapons?

Author:
Hugh Gusterson
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
There has long been a widespread perception among U.S. defense intellectuals, politicians and pundits that, while we can live with the nuclear weapons of the five official nuclear nations for the indefinite future, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to nuclear-threshold states in the Third World, especially the Islamic world, would be enormously dangerous. This orthodoxy is so much a part of our collective common sense that, like all common sense, it can usually be stated as simple fact without fear of contradiction. It is widely found in the media and in learned journals, and it is shared by liberals as well as conservatives.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

66. We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

Author:
Barry R. Posen
Publication Date:
03-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The intense concern about Iran's nuclear energy program reflects the judgment that, should it turn to the production of weapons, an Iran with nuclear arms would gravely endanger the United States and the world. An Iranian nuclear arsenal, policymakers fear, could touch off a regional arms race while emboldening Tehran to undertake aggressive, even reckless, actions.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

67. Iranian Media Reactions to the Nuclear Impasse

Author:
Sana Nourani
Publication Date:
08-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Iran's hardline establishment often declares that all Iranian citizens are united in their determination to see Iran exercise its "right" to nuclear power and "self-sufficiency" — that is, operation of the complete fuel cycle. But are all Iranians really so enthused by the national nuclear program and heedless of international repercussions? What follows is a collection of Iranian reactions to the recent nuclear impasse.
Topic:
Civil Society and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East

68. The Defense Monitor: Philip E. Coyle, III, CDI Senior Advisor, Appointed to Base Realignment and Closure 2005

Author:
Victoria Samson
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The Center for Defense Information is proud to announce that Philip E. Coyle III, a senior advisor at the center, has been appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on the independent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 commission.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Middle East

69. Waiting to Exhale: The Six-Party Talks Agreement

Author:
Wade Huntley
Publication Date:
10-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Nuclear nonproliferation advocates worldwide welcomed the joint agreement issued September 19 by the participants in the "Six-Party Talks" process aimed at denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. The agreement evinces not only a commitment by North Korea to end all nuclear weapons development, but also a validation of a negotiated approach to the current Korean nuclear crisis which both North Korea and the United States have, at various times, resisted.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, and North Korea

70. Feeding the Nuclear Fire

Author:
Zia Mian and M.V. Ramana
Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
The July 18 joint statement by U.S. President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has attracted a great deal of comment. The focus has been on the possible consequences of U.S. promises to support India's nuclear energy program in exchange for India clearly separating its military and civilian nuclear facilities and programs and opening the latter to international inspection.
Topic:
International Relations, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
United States, India, and Asia

71. Undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—It Didn't Start With the Bush Administration

Author:
Stephen Zunes
Publication Date:
06-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Most of the international community and arms control advocates here in the United States have correctly blamed the Bush administration for the failure of the recently-completed review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the course of the four-week meeting of representatives of the 188 countries which have signed and ratified the treaty, the United States refused to uphold its previous arms control pledges, blocked consideration of the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, refused to rule out U.S. nuclear attacks against non-nuclear states, and demanded that Iran and North Korea—but not U.S. allies like Israel, Pakistan, and India—be singled out for UN sanctions for their nuclear programs. Thomas Graham, who served as a U.S. envoy to disarmament talks in the Clinton administration noted that the Bush administration's demands resulted in what appears to be "the most acute failure in the treaty's history."
Topic:
International Relations, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United States, India, Israel, and Korea

72. The Me Too Club

Author:
Tad Daley
Publication Date:
06-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
The "nuclear option" may have receded in the U.S. Senate for the time being. Unfortunately, it's still very much on the table for the two newest aspirants to the nuclear club. Not to mention those who already have their membership cards.
Topic:
International Relations and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Middle East

73. Iran's Security Challenges and the Region

Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
The following summary addresses key aspects that emerged from the discussion at the Ninth Liechtenstein Colloquium on European and International Affairs held in Triesenberg, Principality of Liechtenstein on March 17-20, 2005. The colloquium focused on Iran and included an in-depth discussion of the nuclear issue. Since the LCM is conducted under strict off-the-record rules, no attribution is provided. Attending participants included high-level Iranian offi cials involved in the ongoing negotiations with the EU, as well as representatives and experts from the United States, the EU, Russia, and India.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and India

74. Iran: Rogue State?

Author:
Ali Mostashari
Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Iran is now an important focal point for U.S. foreign policy. Yet many have argued that the United States lacks a coherent foreign policy on Iran, amounting to no more than an enormous list of “evils”: namely, that Iran exports its radical Islamist revolution, supports Hezbollah and Hamas and actively opposes the Middle East peace process, is building nuclear and biological weapons capacity, was involved in the bombings of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires and the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, provides Al-Qaeda with safe passage and refuge, helps insurgents in Iraq, assassinates its own dissidents and oppresses its people, and so on.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Saudi Arabia

75. Nuclear Energy Today

Publication Date:
02-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Abstract:
Nuclear energy has been used to produce electricity for more than half a century. It currently provides about 17% of the world's supply and 23% in OECD countries. The oil crisis of the early 1970s provoked a surge in nuclear power plant orders and construction, but as oil prices stabilised and even dropped, and enough electricity generating plants came into service to meet demand, orders tailed off. Accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States (1979) and at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) also raised serious questions in the public mind about nuclear safety.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, Nuclear Weapons, and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
United States and Ukraine

76. The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States

Author:
Pietro S. Nivola
Publication Date:
09-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Brookings Institution
Abstract:
A tendency among commentators, even experts like Bernard L. Cohen, the author of the sentence above, is to regard the complicated story of nuclear energy in the United States as exceptionally troubled and frustrating. The root cause of the troubles and frustrations, moreover, is commonly thought to be more political than economic. The promise of nuclear power in the United States is said to have been dimmed primarily by an eccentrically risk-averse public and an unusually hostile regulatory climate. Practically nowhere else, it is said, have political and legal institutions been so uncooperative. Supposedly the central governments of most other advanced countries have lent far more support to their nuclear industries. And because those governments are assumed to be more aggressive in combating pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, surely “the rest of the world” has been doing much more than America to level the playing field for the development of nuclear energy. But just how valid is this conventional picture?
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons and Politics
Political Geography:
United States

77. Missile Defense: Defending America or Building Empire?

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
05-2003
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The rationale for missile defense put forward by its advocates is often a “doom and gloom” picture: America and its citizens are defenseless against the threat of ballistic missiles, and missile defense is supposed to protect the American people. The administration's vision of missile defense is not just a global system that protects the United States against long-range missiles but a global system capable of engaging all classes of ballistic missiles to protect U.S. forces deployed worldwide, U.S. allies, and other friendly countries. Thus, the purpose of missile defense is extended well beyond protecting America and Americans.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and America

78. Iraq's Nascent Nuclear Doctrine: Insights from a Captured Document

Author:
Norman Cigar
Publication Date:
03-2003
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. forces captured several million Iraqi military documents. Among these was one titled "The Operational Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction; Volume 2; Part 2; Foundations for the Use of Nuclear Weapons in War." The manual was published in July 1988 by the Ministry of Defense and bears the approving signature of then-chief of staff Lt. Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji. As such, it represents official Iraqi thinking on the topic, providing the most detailed description of how Baghdad might use nuclear weapons if it were to acquire them. The existence of the manual indicates that the Iraqi military was thinking ahead to a time when Iraq would have nuclear weapons, and that it was preparing to integrate such weapons into its arsenal and its overall military doctrine
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Religion
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Arab Countries

79. A New Agenda for Nuclear Weapons

Author:
Ivo H Daalder and James M Lindsay
Publication Date:
02-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Brookings Institution
Abstract:
George W. Bush promised on the campaign trail “to leave the cold war behind” and “rethink the requirements for nuclear deterrence.” Last November, he unveiled an arms reduction proposal that purports to do just that. It would have the United States reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal over the next ten years from its current level of 7,200 warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. Equally important, the United States would achieve that goal not by negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) agreement, but through unilateral action.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States

80. Summit with Substance: Creating Payoffs in an Unequal Partnership

Author:
Andrew Kuchins
Publication Date:
05-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
U.S. president George W. Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin have an important opportunity at their upcoming meeting to reach key agreements, remove major irritants in U.S.–Russian relations, and initiate a genuine partnership less burdened by Cold War legacies. In Europe last summer and in the United States last November, the two leaders established personal chemistry and trust—but the meetings lacked substance. Although Putin's leadership position will not be made or broken on his foreign policies, this time it will be important for his pro-Western orientation to produce a concrete payoff for Russia. As for President Bush, if the summit fails to produce results, then his vaunted Russia policy will be seen to be drifting. Thus both men require real outcomes such as a signed, legally binding nuclear arms reduction agreement and a new institutional relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Perhaps just as important, however, Putin and Bush each must explain to his own country why this partnership is important and what are its key elements.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, North Atlantic, and Asia

81. Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction: An Emerging Challenge For The Bush Administration

Author:
Michael Eisenstadt
Publication Date:
01-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are emerging as one of the first major foreign policy challenges of the Bush administration. Free of weapons monitors and with sanctions eroding, Iraq has resumed its aggressive policies. After the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada last September, it briefly moved elements of four to five divisions toward its border with Syria in a show of solidarity, and on several occasions since then, Saddam Husayn has threatened to destroy Israel. Then, earlier this month, his older son Uday reasserted Iraq's claim to Kuwait. With its conventional military capabilities hobbled by two bloody wars and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq's retained WMD capabilities assume renewed salience.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, Kuwait, and Syria

82. Walk Softly and Look Ahead in Nuclear South Asia

Author:
Zia Mian
Publication Date:
10-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Before September 11, South Asia's problems loomed large. The region, with over a billion people, a history of war, rising religious militancy, newly tested nuclear weapons, and a gettough mood, was on the brink of instability. Adding to South Asia's long list of troubles is the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Hasty U.S. actions could deepen the problems facing South Asia. Over the long term, the U.S. has the opportunity to foster regional stability—but only if it pursues a different set of policies in the region.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and War
Political Geography:
United States, South Asia, and Taliban

83. Toward Smart Sanctions on Iraq

Author:
George A. Lopez
Publication Date:
04-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
Abstract:
The United States should seek to limit Iraqi designs to develop weapons of mass destruction by supporting a UN-sponsored 'smart' sanctions mechanism. Smart sanctions would involve a tightened system of border monitoring and verification with an eye toward control of dual-use technologies. Financial controls through the UN escrow account should be retained to limit Iraq's purchasing abilities in the global marketplace. Private accounts of Iraqi elites should also be frozen to limit purchases of dual-use goods or expertise. The elimination of the blunt general trade sanctions, which are already leaking, would lift a considerable burden off the Iraqi people.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and United Nations
Political Geography:
United States and Iraq

84. Arms Control and Missile Defense: Not Mutually Exclusive

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
07-2000
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Traditionally, strategic offensive arms control and ballistic missile defense have been viewed as mutually exclusive. During the Cold War, the general belief was that anti–ballistic missile (ABM) systems would call into question the ability of the superpowers to successfully survive a first nuclear strike and inflict sufficient damage with a second strike. That is, missile defense could allow one superpower to launch a first strike and then use its defenses to intercept a second strike with the other superpower's surviving warheads—thereby undermining deterrence and stability. Furthermore, the thinking was that this situation would result in a dangerous offensive arms race as each side sought to counter the effects of the other's defenses.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Asia

85. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein: The Policy Debate

Author:
Max Singer
Publication Date:
03-2000
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Abstract:
Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, has biological weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Israelis with infectious diseases such as anthrax. These weapons could be delivered either by missiles, by small pilotless planes, or by infecting the passengers of a plane landing at Ben-Gurion Airport with less than an ounce of agent spread through the plane's air conditioning system. Saddam also has at least several nuclear weapons that are missing only highly enriched uranium which he is likely to be able either to make himself or to buy this year.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Middle East

86. Preventing a Nuclear Arms Race in South Asia

Author:
David Cortright and Samina Ahmed
Publication Date:
01-2000
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
Abstract:
The United States must unequivocally demand that India and Pakistan join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-nuclear weapon states. The United States should retain punitive sanctions which target Indian and Pakistani institutions and policymakers responsible for their nuclear weapons programs. Targeted incentives should be provided that seek to diminish internal support for nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. The United States should fulfill its obligation under Article VI of the NPT to achieve global nuclear disarmament.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and South Asia

87. An Appropriate Role for Nuclear Power in Meeting Global Energy Needs

Author:
Donald L. Guertin, Richard E. Balzhiser, Christian Gobert, William J. Dirks, Joy C. Dunkerley, and Stephen P. Pettibone
Publication Date:
02-1999
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Despite the recent global economic slowdown, the demand for energy services is bound to increase over the long term in order to provide improved living standards for growing populations, in particular in developing countries. In recognition of its unique characteristics, the demand for electricity will rise even faster than total energy. Several studies present scenarios that show a doubling of global installed capacity over the next twenty years.
Topic:
Energy Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Asia