Search

Begin New Search Topic Weapons of Mass Destruction Political Geography United States

91. Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: A Progress Update

Author:
Matthew Bunn
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
In the past year, there has been notable progress in ensuring that stockpiles of the essential ingredients of nuclear weapons around the world are secured from theft and transfer to terrorists. But there remains a dangerous gap between the pace of progress and the scope and urgency of the threat – a gap that, if left unfilled, could lead to unparalleled catastrophe. We must close the gap – to take action now that, within a few years, could reduce the danger that terrorists might turn the heart of a U.S. city into a new Hiroshima to a fraction of what it is today. This paper is intended to outline the continuing threat; summarize the progress made in addressing it in the past year, and the gaps that still remain; and recommend steps to close the gap between threat and response. The terrorists who have sworn to kill Americans wherever they can be found have undertaken an intensive effort to get a nuclear bomb, or the materials and expertise needed to make one. We need to be racing as fast as we can to stop them before they succeed. This paper is about steps to win that race.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, America, and Hiroshima

92. Prospects for U.S.-Russian Nonproliferation Cooperation Under Bush and Putin

Author:
Andrea Gabbitas
Publication Date:
01-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Since September 11, the relationship between the United States and Russia has evolved significantly. At the Crawford summit in November 2001, President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin officially declared a “new relationship” between the United States and Russia. A significant portion of this new relationship has centered on nonproliferation matters, which have been declared a priority by both presidents. In fighting terrorist threats, Bush and Putin have “agreed to enhance bilateral and multilateral action to stem the export and proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological materials, related technologies, and delivery systems as a critical component of the battle to defeat international terrorism.”
Topic:
International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Asia

93. Verifying North Korean Nuclear Disarmament

Author:
Jon B. Wolfsthal, Fred McGoldrick, and Seongwhun Cheon
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
This chapter examines North Korea's plutonium infrastructure and production capabilities, as well as how a freeze over that capability might be reconstituted and verified if an agreement to do so can be reached. The chapter, which also discusses several issues related to the possible final elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability—a stated goal of U.S. policy—does not prejudge what form a freeze might take, how it might be negotiated, or by what bodies it might be implemented. This chapter is meant to provide a broad view of what hurdles anyone trying to reestablish a freeze might encounter and what uncertainties might remain under such a freeze.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, East Asia, and North Korea

94. Are Our Troops Ready for Biological and Chemical Attacks?

Author:
Eric R. Taylor
Publication Date:
02-2003
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
As war with Iraq becomes imminent, U.S. military readiness takes center stage. Concerns about readiness focus not only on our ability to successfully attack Iraq but on our ability to defend U.S. forces against an enemy regime that, if its existence is threatened, could have every incentive to use weapons of mass destruction. In any war with Iraq, military experts worry most about attacks with chemical and biological weapons. They have reason to worry, given the U.S. military's lack of preparedness for such attacks.
Topic:
Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East

95. Mini-Nukes and Preemptive Policy: A Dangerous Combination

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
11-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Currently, the United States relies on conventional bunker-busting bombs—such as the GBU-28, which was used in both Afghanistan and Iraq—to destroy hardened, underground targets. Legislation is pending in Congress that would provide funding for research—but not engineering or development—for low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons for targets that cannot be destroyed by conventional bunker busters.
Topic:
Terrorism, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Iraq

96. Addressing the North Korea Nuclear Challenge

Author:
Michael H. Armacost, Daniel I. Okimoto, and Gi-Wook Shin
Publication Date:
04-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
North Korea's renewed bid for nuclear weapons poses an urgent, serious foreign policy challenge to the United States. The current situation—though it bears a resemblance to the events of 1993–1994—is far more dangerous and difficult. North Korea has developed longer-range ballistic missiles; South Korea's growing nationalism has put its U.S. relations on shakier ground; and the United States is distracted by the wars on terrorism and for regime change in Iraq.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Israel, East Asia, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and Palestine

97. New Priorities in South Asia

Author:
Frank G. II Wisner, Nicholas Platt, and Marshall M. Bouton
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
South Asia may be halfway around the globe from the United States, but in the age of the Internet and globalization, what happens there—as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda tragically underscored—can affect all Americans. The challenge to U.S. policy over the medium term (through 2010) is to design and implement a stable and sustained approach that will solidify bilateral ties with three of the key countries of the region—India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan—and give the United States an opportunity to influence major regional developments. This report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and recommends how U.S. policy can best take advantage of the opportunities while addressing the dangers that they present. Success in dealing with South Asia will require sustained and highlevel attention, sensitive diplomacy, a realistic view of what is possible, and, especially with Pakistan and Afghanistan, investment of substantial resources.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, South Asia, and India

98. Meeting the North Korean Nuclear Challenge

Author:
Eric Heginbotham, Morton I. Abramowitz, and James T. Laney
Publication Date:
05-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Over the past two years, North Korea has advanced its nuclear weapons program and increasingly emphasized its need for a nuclear capability. Since October 2002 when it admitted to having a clandestine program to make highly enrichment uranium (HEU), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), asserted it possesses nuclear weapons, and declared that it is reprocessing its spent fuel. In May 2003, Pyongyang declared that its 1992 “denuclearization” pledge with South Korea was dead. North Korean violations of the Agreed Framework, the basis of U.S.-North Korea relations since 1994, have left that agreement in tatters.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, East Asia, and North Korea

99. A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Author:
Lawrence J. Korb
Publication Date:
05-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
From the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001, and even now after the Iraq war of 2003, the United States has not had a consistent national security strategy that enjoyed the support of the American people and our allies. This situation is markedly different from the Cold War era when our nation had a clear, coherent, widely supported strategy that focused on containing and deterring Soviet Communist expansion. The tragic events of September 11, the increase in terrorism, and threats from countries such as North Korea and, until recently, Iraq, create an imperative once again to fashion and implement a coherent national security strategy that will safeguard our national interests.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, America, Israel, East Asia, North Korea, and Berlin

100. Unproven: The Controversy over Justifying War in Iraq

Author:
David Cortright, Alistair Millar, George A. Lopez, and Linda M. Gerber
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fourth Freedom Forum
Abstract:
The failure of U.S. and British forces in Iraq to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction has sparked controversy on both sides of the Atlantic and in the wider international community. Two contending explanations have been offered for why the Bush administration made apparently questionable claims about weapons of mass destruction. The first alleges an intelligence failure. The best analysts in the CIA simply had no foolproof way of discerning what Saddam had. They gave the administration a wide-ranging set of estimates, from benign to worst-case, and, given the way bureaucracies behave, the president's advisors adopted the worse case scenario. The second claim, more odious in form and substance, is that the administration inflated and manipulated uncertain data, possibly even requesting that material sent to it be redone to fit preconceived notions. The Bush administration has gone to great pains to reassert that it stands by its previous pronouncements that prohibited weapons will be located in due time.
Topic:
International Relations, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East