Last July, a majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), led by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., tried to reverse Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' decision to stop production of the F-22. After Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the White House lobbied long and hard against the emissaries from Lockheed, the F-22 lost in a somewhat lopsided vote of 58 to 40. Game over. Right?
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Counterinsurgency
The international Global Zero Commission, a group of political and military leaders from the United States, Russia and other key countries, held an intensive two-day meeting in Washington, D.C. on June 28-29, 2009 - where they presented a practical and comprehensive plan calling for the phased and verified elimination of all nuclear weapons over the next 20 years, and briefed senior Obama administration officials on their recommendations in advance of the July 6-8 Moscow Summit.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Counterinsurgency
In their January 2007 Op-Ed , George Shultz, William Perry, Sam Nunn and Henry Kissinger advocated "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons." To imagine a world without nuclear weapons means that the United States and the other nuclear powers can find a way to get rid of them. In other words: "Getting to zero." But, how to reach "zero" is usually where the debate stalemates. With characteristic candor, Shultz himself admits he doesn't know how to get to zero, and doubts if his colleagues do.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Arms Control and Proliferation
Until Dec. 27, the "success" of U.S. President George Bush's defiant rejection of the American public's repudiation of his Iraq and Afghanistan war policies – evidenced by the November 2006 congressional election – looked to be the most significant aspect of major armed conflicts around the world during 2007.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Defense Policy, and Arms Control and Proliferation
Marcus Corbin, Michael Donovan, Winslow T. Wheeler, and Ivan Safranchuk
Publication Date:
02-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The new fiscal year (FY) 2006 defense budget from President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is riddled with contradictions and duplicity. By the time Congress is finished, the problems will be worse.
If made 63 years and one day earlier – Dec. 7, 1941 – that assertion would have reflected reality as the United States suddenly found itself an active participant in World War II. It arguably was the case on Oct. 8, 2001, when U.S. cruise missiles targeted Taliban and al-Qaida installations and personnel in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Colin Robinson, Bruce.G Blair, Nikolai Zlobin, and Alan F. Kay
Publication Date:
10-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Nuclear terrorism, thankfully, is still only a specter, not a reality. But the recent wave of bloodshed in Russia underscores the urgency of the need to prevent terrorists capable of indiscriminate slaughter from acquiring nuclear bombs.
Mark Burgess, Lawrence Korb, Winslow T. Wheeler, and Philip E. Coyle
Publication Date:
08-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence miss the real problem facing the intelligence community. The real problem is not organization or culture, but the Team B concept which began in 1976 and the real villains are those hardliners who refuse to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals about the threats facing the country.
Rachel Stohl, Anthony Zinni, Steven C. Welsh, Michael Donovan, and Colin Robinson
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
[T]he first mistake that will be recorded in history [is] the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work. It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others. It's not a pleasant thing to have to administer, it requires troops full-time, there are moments when there ... are periods of violence, but containment is a lot cheaper than the alternative, as we're finding out now.
Rachel Stohl, Winslow Wheeler, Theresa Hitchens, and Bruce.G Blair
Publication Date:
04-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
ONE OF THE MOST RAREFIED experiences of a newly installed president is his receiving of the “nuclear football” conferring the right to order the use of nuclear weapons in defense of the American national interest. Few, if any, presidents have had a firm grip on the “football” however, as all U.S. presidents receive a misleading briefing on their nuclear weapons rights and responsibilities, and options.
Eric Hagt, Victoria Samson, Thomas R. Pickering, Lawrence J. Korb, Bruce.G Blair, and Yali Chen
Publication Date:
02-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
For all the talk about rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons to threaten the United States, and all the heated debate about the United States developing mini-nukes and bunker busters to keep the rogues at bay, the U.S. nuclear weapons establishment does not pay much attention to the “axis of evil.” The real obsession of the U.S. nuclear enterprise at all levels — from Strategic Command in Omaha to the bomb custodians and designers in New Mexico — is keeping U.S. nuclear forces prepared to fight a large-scale nuclear war at a moment's notice with … Russia.
This issue of the defense monitor provides basic information about U.S. and foreign military forces, including facts on size, equipment, and cost. It is intended as a snapshot reference guide — more data is available on the CDI website at www.cdi.org/ news/vital-statistics/ and on the government Internet sources listed at the back of the issue.
Philip E. Coyle, Rachel Stohl, Winslow Wheeler, Theresa Hitchens, Victoria Garcia, Colin Robinson, Krista Nelson, and Jeffrey Lewis
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Few things are more routinely abused than facts when people in government — any party, any branch — set out to make a decision. I've been reminded of this truth watching the current administration parry revelations that it manipulated “facts” about weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the war against Iraq that Congress authorized a year ago this past week. But I'd learned it the hard way much earlier. During a 31-year career as an evaluator for the General Accounting Office and a staffer for four different U.S. senators from both parties, I spent a lot of time trying to use facts to influence decisions made by the U.S. government. The facts took a beating all too often.
S of this writing, 39 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the 10 weeks following the declared conclusion of the campaign to over throw Saddam Hussein on May 1. This fact stands in sharp contrast to the optimistic pre-war rhetoric of the George W. Bush administration regarding the “liberation” of Iraq and testifies to the arduous road that lies ahead.
Rear Adm. Eugene (Gene) Carroll, our beloved colleague who passed away this February, often shared with me his recollections of the role he once played in planning for nuclear war. As quoted in his obituary in the Washington Post, Gene once wrote: “During the horrible confrontation with the Soviet Union we called the Cold War, I frequently stood nuclear alert watch on aircraft carriers. For a period of time my assigned target was an industrial complex and transportation hub in a major city in Eastern Europe … My bomb alone would have resulted in the death of an estimated 600,000 human beings. Multiply that by 40 or 50 times and you can understand what two carriers alone would have done.”
At the start of 2003, the United States remains focused on fighting global terrorism in general even as it zeroes in on Iraq as the nexus of evil. But a number of factors in play today make international support for such a venture less effusive than in 1990-91, when the last anti-Saddam “coalition of the willing” formed. Many economies, including those of three of the four big financial supporters of the 1990-91 war — Japan, Germany, and Saudi Arabia — are weaker. Any war would be relatively more expensive. Suspicions about U.S. motives, fueled by the Bush administration's initial unilateralism, remain alive despite Washington's patient work in obtaining a UN Security Council resolution on new inspections. Germany has declared it will provide no forces; use of Saudi Arabian airbases to launch combat missions against Iraq remains unclear; and troop contributions, as well as moral support, from other Arab states such as Egypt and Syria may not materialize.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt
Throughout the spring, summer and fall of this year thousands of U.S. military planners have worked on the various contingencies and strategies concerning a possible invasion of Iraq.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
IN HIS JAN. 29, 2002 State of the Union Address to Congress and the American public, U.S. President George W. Bush described a tripartite “axis of evil” threatening the United States.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
The bush administration is requesting $343.2 billion for the Pentagon in Fiscal Year 2002. This is $32.6 billion above current levels, and includes the $14.2 billion increase requested for the military in the March budget release (see below). This total also includes $14.3 billion for the defense functions of the Department of Energy.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Defense Policy
To prove he is serious about National Missile Defense, President George W. Bush must abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty now, according to the most strident critics of the treaty. The longstanding ABM accord with Russia, it is said, is thwarting the technology needed for missile defense.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Weapons of Mass Destruction