Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Weapons Political Geography United States

151. Regional Overview

Author:
Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The US profile in Asia appears to be on the rise following Secretary of State Clinton‟s highly publicized presentation at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) ministerial in Hanoi in July and President Obama‟s New York meeting with ASEAN leaders at quarter‟s end. Meanwhile Beijing‟s image took a few hits as it tried to bully Japan (successfully), the US and ROK (unsuccessfully), and ASEAN (TBD) on maritime-related issues, while seemingly having nothing but kind thoughts and gestures for the DPRK, essentially serving as its defense attorney during UN Security Council deliberations regarding the attack on the Cheonan. Prospects for a resumption of Six-Party Talks remained low, despite a professed willingness by Pyongyang to return to the table (albeit as a recognized nuclear weapon state). New faces appeared in the North‟s general officer ranks but the (seemingly nonexistent) prospects for Korean Peninsula denuclearization remained unchanged.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Asia

152. 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

153. NATO's Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Beyond "Yes" or "No"

Author:
Karl-Heinz Kamp
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
"NATO is a nuclear alliance," stated US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at NATO's informal ministerial meeting in Tallinn in April 2010. NATO always was, but many had forgotten about this constituting element of the North Atlantic Alliance. Today, the nuclear question and the so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons (TNW), i.e. the US nuclear bombs stationed in five European member countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey) are back on the political agenda. Ignited by some European member governments, a debate on the pros and cons of the American nuclear presence in Europe has started. Some are in favor of a rapid withdrawal of these weapons from European soil and claim that the strategic rationale for these types of weapons, which are supposed to be used against Warsaw Pact forces, had long gone. Opponents of quick removal point out that a credible nuclear deterrence posture remains essential for NATO - not least to reassure most of the new NATO members who still harbor concerns with regard to a potentially aggressive Russia (which keeps an estimated number of 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons in its European part - about 10 to 15 times as many as NATO).
Topic:
Security, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, India, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Netherlands

154. Controversies over missile defense in Europe

Author:
Raimo Väyrynen
Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The plan to deploy an anti-missile system in Central Europe has been one of the most controversial security policy issues in the past few years. The Bush Administration pushed hard for the deployment of the radar site in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland, largely because it would provide an additional layer in the global anti-ballistic missile defense of the United States. In both of these countries, public opinion has been against the deployments and the governments have had to negotiate between external and internal pressures pushing them in different policy directions. Russia has been adamantly opposed to the missile defense plan, issuing both threats and suggesting alternative ways to diminish the threat that the United States feels from Iran. The result has been a political stalemate that has further complicated otherwise tense relations between Moscow and Washington, D.C. With the arrival of the Obama Administration, there is a pause in the missile dispute, but no permanent resolution of the conflict is in sight.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, Washington, Poland, Moscow, and Czech Republic

155. 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

156. 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

157. Funding for U.S. Efforts to Improve Controls Over Nuclear Weapons, Materials, and Expertise Overseas: A 2009 Update

Author:
Matthew Bunn and Andrew Newman
Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Obama administration is still developing a plan to ensure effective security for all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material worldwide within four years, as President Obama outlined in his Prague speech. Because the plan is still in development, the additional funding to implement such an effort was not included in the “steady as you go” fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget request sent to Congress in early May 2009. The $1.3 billion request for programs to improve controls over nuclear weapons, materials, and expertise overseas is essentially the same as the FY 2009 appropriation and $30 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation. The request for all threat reduction programs (including chemical, biological, and missile-related programs as well as nuclear programs) is approximately $1.6 billion, a slight decline from the FY 2009 appropriation. As Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, put it in an April 2 press release: “The budget request for FY 2010 needs to be significantly increased across the board if there is any hope of meeting the President's high pri-ority WMD proliferation prevention goals. A stagnant or modestly increased funding profile will be inadequate and amount to business as usual.” If the four-year target is to be achieved, the administration and Congress will need to work together to ensure that these efforts are not slowed by lack of funds.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States

158. Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea

Author:
Paul B. Stares and Joel S. Wit
Publication Date:
01-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
For most of the 1990s, North Korea was under what can only be called a prolonged deathwatch, so common and confident were predictions of its demise. Despite suffering acute economic stress from the loss of its principal economic patron—the Soviet Union—in 1991, the sudden death of its founding father––Kim Il-Sung––in 1994, and then soon after a devastating famine that may have claimed as many as a million lives, North Korea managed to survive. By decade's end, North Korea's extraordinary resilience, combined with its defiant and at times belligerent attitude to the rest of the world, had convinced most experts that this was not a country about to pass either quickly or quietly into the history books. Since then, the conventional wisdom among most if not all North Korea watchers is that it will muddle through indefinitely even if its long-term future remains doubtful.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
United States and North Korea

159. 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

160. Understanding the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy Debate

Author:
Christopher F. Chyba and J. D. Crouch
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Washington Quarterly
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 requires the U.S. secretary of defense to conduct a nuclear posture review (NPR) in consultation with the secretaries of energy and state, and to report the results to Congress before the end of 2009.The NPR, therefore, will be the Obama administration's forum for reviewing U.S. nuclear weapons policy, posture, and related programmatic and technical issues. Navigating and choosing among sharp disagreements in each of these areas, in order to map the wisest path forward for national and international security, is a difficult task. President Barack Obama has already made decisions on a number of important nuclear issues, but the NPR will need to relate these to the overall nuclear weapons posture. How will his desire to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) relate to the size and capabilities of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex? Should the United States arm some Trident submarines with conventionally/-tipped ballistic missiles? Should it pursue new arms control agreements with Russia beyond negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)? What should medium/-term U.S. objectives for strategic and non/-strategic warhead numbers and types be? What about ballistic missile defense? The list of important questions is long and, unless integrated into a broader strategic vision, presents a disparate jumble of choices.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia and United States