US Nuclear Weapons Policy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

PROOFS U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy UNCORRECTED PROOFS UNCORRECTED Independent Task Force Report No. 62 William J. Perry and Brent Scowcroft, Chairs Charles D. Ferguson, Project Director U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business execu- tives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; con- vening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, www.cfr.org. The Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional position on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S. government. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in its publications are the sole responsibility of the author or authors. The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors Independent Task Forces to assess issues of current and critical importance to U.S. foreign policy and provide policymakers with concrete judgments and recommenda- tions. Diverse in backgrounds and perspectives, Task Force members aim to reach a meaningful consensus on policy through private and nonpartisan deliberations. Once launched, Task Forces are independent of CFR and solely responsible for the content of their reports. Task Force members are asked to join a consen- sus signifying that they endorse “the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” Each Task Force member also has the option of putting forward additional or dissenting views. Members’ affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply institutional endorsement. Task Force observers participate in discussions, but are not asked to join the consensus. For further information about CFR or this Task Force, please write to the Council on Foreign Relations, Communications, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, or call Communications at 212.434.9400. Visit CFR’s website at www.cfr.org. Copyright © 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations®, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form beyond the reproduction permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law Act (17 U.S.C. Sections 107 and 108) and excerpts by reviewers for the public press, without express written permission from the Council on Foreign Relations. For information, write to the Publications Office, Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065. This report is printed on paper certified by SmartWood to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council, which promotes environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. Task Force Members Task Force members are asked to join a consensus signifying that they endorse “the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” They partic- ipate in the Task Force in their individual, not institutional, capacities. Spencer P. Boyer Arnold Kanter Linton F. Brooks Ronald F. Lehman II† Ashton B. Carter* Jack F. Matlock Jr. John Deutch† Franklin C. Miller Charles D. Ferguson George R. Perkovich† Michèle A. Flournoy* William J. Perry John A. Gordon Mitchell B. Reiss Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty Lynn Rusten Eugene E. Habiger Scott D. Sagan† J. Bryan Hehir Brent Scowcroft Laura S. H. Holgate† Benn Tannenbaum† Frederick J. Iseman *Carter and Flournoy participated in the Task Force under their affiliations with Harvard University and the Center for a New American Security respectively. As current administration officials, they have not been asked to join the Task Force consensus. †The individual has endorsed the report and submitted an additional or dissenting view. v Contents Foreword ix Chairmen’s Preface xi Acknowledgments xvii Acronyms xix A Note on Definitions xxi Task Force Report 1 Executive Summary 3 The Need for a New Policy Assessment 7 The New Security Environment 22 U.S.-Russia Relations 29 U.S.-China Relations 42 Preventing Proliferation 46 Security Practices and the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex 67 Recommendations 81 Additional or Dissenting Views 97 Endnotes 101 Task Force Members 107 Task Force Observers 117 Foreword On his first trip to Europe as president, Barack Obama stood in Prague and reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to a world free of nuclear weap- ons: “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.” President Obama also outlined a series of near-term steps to support this long-term goal, including the negotiation of a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia and measures to strengthen the international nuclear nonprolif- eration regime. The question of whether and how to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons has emerged as a central foreign policy issue. But that vision remains just a vision. President Obama himself has acknowl- edged that “this goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime.” Meanwhile, there are critical questions to be addressed about nuclear weapons and policy. The Council on Foreign Relations convened an Independent Task Force to assess these questions of nuclear weapons and make recom- mendations concerning U.S. forces and policies. The report notes that in the near term nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security. For this reason it emphasizes the importance of maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable deterrent nuclear force and makes recommendations on this front. The report also offers measures to advance important goals such as preventing nuclear terrorism and bolstering the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The report notes that because of the impending Nonproliferation Treaty Review and the U.S. government’s nuclear posture review, the Obama administration has a unique opportunity to examine exist- ing policies and agreements and take new steps in a number of areas. Although Task Force members disagreed on the practicality and desirability of eventual nuclear abolition, the report supports deeper ix x Foreword reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals. The Task Force also calls for a revived strategic dialogue between the United States and Russia, as well as renewed military-to-military discussions with China to encour- age transparency on both sides on strategic and nuclear security issues. In addition, it favors ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and recommends a halt to the production of fissile material for weapons. Finally, the report calls on the United States to reaffirm security assur- ances to its allies and puts forth a set of best security practices for all states that have nuclear weapons and weapons-usable fissile material. On behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations, I wish to thank Task Force chairs and distinguished public servants William J. Perry and Brent Scowcroft, whose knowledge, insight, and standing were integral to leading this effort. CFR is also indebted to the individual Task Force members, who each contributed their significant experience and exper- tise to the report. My thanks go as well to Anya Schmemann, director of CFR’s Task Force program, who guided this project from start to finish. I also thank Charles D. Ferguson, CFR’s Philip D. Reed senior fellow for science and technology, for ably and patiently directing the project and writing the report. The hard work of all those involved has pro- duced an important study that outlines a responsible agenda for U.S. nuclear policy in an era that poses unprecedented nuclear threats but also historic opportunities. Richard N. Haass President Council on Foreign Relations April 2009 Chairmen’s Preface Every day during the Cold War, the world faced the possibility of a nuclear exchange that could have resulted in the end of civilization. With those times past, the danger of a nuclear holocaust might seem remote. But the end of the Cold War did not also bring about the end of history. History is being written every day, in the streets of Baghdad, in the nuclear test ranges of North Korea, in the nuclear labs of Iran, in the council chambers of the Kremlin, and in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. So, although the world no longer lives under the threat of a nuclear holocaust, these remain dangerous times. American service person- nel are still being killed in Iraq. The Taliban is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan. North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb and Iran is not far behind. Russia’s relations with the United States have become strained, with the tension reaching dangerous levels during the crisis in Georgia in 2008. The first decade after the Cold War ended was one of euphoria, but that has faded.
Recommended publications
  • Bunker Busters: Washington's Drive for New Nuclear Weapons

    Bunker Busters: Washington's Drive for New Nuclear Weapons

    BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL BASIC RESEARCH REPORT Bunker Busters: Washington’s Drive for New Nuclear Weapons Mark Bromley, David Grahame and Christine Kucia Research Report 2002.2 July 2002 B U N K E R B U S T E R S British American Security Information Council The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) is an independent research organisation that analyses international security issues. BASIC works to promote awareness of security issues among the public, policy makers and the media in order to foster informed debate on both sides of the Atlantic. BASIC in the UK is a registered charity no. 1001081 BASIC in the US is a non-profit organization constituted under section 501(c)(3) of the US Internal Revenue Service Code. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organisations whose advice and assistance made this report possible. Special thanks go to David Culp (Friends Committee on National Legislation) and Ian Davis for their guidance on the overall research and writing. The authors would also like to thank Martin Butcher (Physicians for Social Responsibility), Nicola Butler, Aidan Harris, Karel Koster (PENN-Netherlands), Matt Rivers, Paul Rogers (Bradford University), and Dmitry Polikanov (International Committee of the Red Cross) for valuable advice on the report. Support This publication was made possible by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Colombe Foundation, Compton Foundation, Inc., The Ford Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Polden Puckham Charitable Trust, Ploughshares Fund, private support from the Rockefeller Family, and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Bunker Busters: Washington’s Drive for New Nuclear Weapons By Mark Bromley, David Grahame and Christine Kucia Published by British American Security Information Council July 2002 Price: $10/£7 ISBN: 1 874533 46 6 2 F O R E W O R D Contents Foreword: Ambassador Jonathan Dean ..............................................................
  • Annual Report

    Annual Report

    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
  • Continuity / Change: Rethinking Options for Trident Replacement

    Continuity / Change: Rethinking Options for Trident Replacement

    CONTINUITY / CHANGE: RETHINKING OPTIONS FOR TRIDENT REPLACEMENT DR. NICK RITCHIE Dr. Nick Ritchie Department of Peace Studies BRADFORD DISARMAMENT RESEARCH CENTRE University of Bradford April 2009 DEPARTMENT OF PEACE STUDIES : UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD : JUNE 2010 About this report This report is part of a series of publications under the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre’s programme on Nuclear-Armed Britain: A Critical Examination of Trident Modernisation, Implications and Accountability. To find out more please visit www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/trident.html. Briefing 1: Trident: The Deal Isn’t Done – Serious Questions Remain Unanswered, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing1.html Briefing 2: Trident: What is it For? – Challenging the Relevance of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing2.html. Briefing 3: Trident and British Identity: Letting go of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing3.html. Briefing 4: A Regime on the Edge? How Replacing Trident Undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing4.html. Briefing 5: Stepping Down the Nuclear Ladder: Options for Trident on a Path to Zero, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing5.html. About the author Dr. Nick Ritchie is a Research Fellow at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. He is lead researcher on the Nuclear-Armed Britain programme. He previously worked for six years as a researcher at the Oxford Research Group on global security issues, in particular nuclear proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
  • The Maintenance of a Capable, Credible

    The Maintenance of a Capable, Credible

    he maintenance of a capable, size of the deployed strategic arsenal B61 nuclear gravity bomb, carried by credible nuclear deterrent shrinks and the US reviews its nuclear the B-52 and B-2 bomber fleets. seems to have consensus gov- requirements. In the near future, officials want to Ternmental support. Defense and Energy Department lead- consolidate the number of warheads to Despite heavy investment in the nu- ers want to streamline and standardize the curb costs and accommodate an evolving clear mission over the last few years, Air maintenance of the nation’s warheads—a concept of nuclear deterrence, which Force and senior defense officials say process that has long been unpredictable may be far different from the policies much work lies ahead for the nation’s and irregular, according to a senior USAF and assumptions that dominated the Cold stockpile of nuclear warheads. official working in the Air Staff’s nuclear War. The task is to bring the nuclear Not long ago, ambitious plans were deterrence shop. weapons complex—the nation’s nuclear on the books for a new nuclear earth- warheads and the laboratories and facili- penetrating weapon and the first new- Consolidation ties charged with their care, testing, and build warhead since the Cold War. Then, “We are in a period of transition,” said maintenance—into the 21st century. Administrations changed and the budget Billy W. Mullins, the associate assistant As a result, over the coming decade- crunch hit. chief of staff for strategic deterrence plus, the National Nuclear Security In the aftermath of the New START and nuclear integration on the Air Staff.
  • KA-6D Intruder - 1971

    KA-6D Intruder - 1971

    KA-6D Intruder - 1971 United States Type: Tanker (Air Refueling) Min Speed: 300 kt Max Speed: 570 kt Commissioned: 1971 Length: 16.7 m Wingspan: 16.2 m Height: 4.8 m Crew: 2 Empty Weight: 12070 kg Max Weight: 27500 kg Max Payload: 15870 kg Propulsion: 2x J52-P-409 Weapons / Loadouts: - 300 USG Drop Tank - Drop Tank. OVERVIEW: The Grumman A-6 Intruder was an American, twin jet-engine, mid-wing all-weather attack aircraft built by Grumman Aerospace. In service with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps between 1963 and 1997, the Intruder was designed as an all-weather medium attack aircraft to replace the piston-engined Douglas A-1 Skyraider. As the A-6E was slated for retirement, its precision strike mission was taken over by the Grumman F-14 Tomcat equipped with a LANTIRN pod. From the A-6, a specialized electronic warfare derivative, the EA-6 was developed. DETAILS: The A-6's design team was led by Lawrence Mead, Jr. He later played a lead role in the design of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and the Lunar Excursion Module. The jet nozzles were originally designed to swivel downwards for shorter takeoffs and landings. This feature was initially included on prototype aircraft, but was removed from the design during flight testing. The cockpit used an unusual double pane windscreen and side-by-side seating arrangement in which the pilot sat in the left seat, while the bombardier/navigator sat to the right and slightly below. The incorporation of an additional crew member with separate responsibilities, along with a unique cathode ray tube (CRT) display that provided a synthetic display of terrain ahead, enabled low-level attack in all weather conditions.
  • Iow Imtx Dpa Ndv Eab Eon Rbs Mzv Bdf Mzv Imdw

    Iow Imtx Dpa Ndv Eab Eon Rbs Mzv Bdf Mzv Imdw

    (MDWAY6.MDW) 08157 CHICAGO MIDWAY INTL (MDW) MIDWAY SIX DEPARTURE SL-81 (FAA) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ATIS TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: BADGER 132.75 PETTY 116.4 BAE B Rwys 4L/R, 13C/L, A N42 49.64' CLNC DEL E Chan 111 W87 38.04' 121.85 22L/R, 31C/R, STANDARD. L-28 GND CON Rwys 13R, 31L, NA, ATC. N43^ 07.01' - W88^17.06' 121.65 L-28, H-5 GIPPER MIDWAY TOWER SIMMN DUPAGE 115.4 GIJ G 118.7 226.3 N41 58.84' JI MIDWAY DEP CON W88 52.71' 108.4 DPA APD Chan 101 118.4 388.0 L-28 Chan 21 N41^ 46.12' - W86^ 19.11' N41^ 53.42' - W88^ 21.01' POLO L-28, H-5-10 L-28 LEWKE 111.2 PLL M VZ N41^ 45.72' Chan 49 W87^ 03.80' R-096 N41^ 57.94' 1500 L-28 W89^ 31.45' 315^ 100 L-28 2400 LOCALIZER 109.9 I-MXT IM TX LOCALIZER 109.9 Chan 36 IOWA CITY I-MDW DMI 116.2 IOW I W WO Chan 36 Chan 109 NOTE: Radar required. 135^ N41^ 31.14' NOTE: Chart not to scale. W91^ 36.80' 224^ EC-3, 03 JUL 2008 to 31 L-28, H-5 1400 1300 4 D M E EARND N41^ 25.52' W87^ 34.33' DENNT MOLINE L-28, H-5 N41^ 25.15' 114.4 MZV ZM V CMSKY W87^ 43.48' Chan 91 BACEN N41^ 19.26' N41^ 24.78' L-28, H-5 ACITO N41^ 24.40' W90^ 38.28' W87^ 52.63' N41^23.92' W88^ 01.78' L-27, H-5 L-28, H-5 W88^11.0' L-28, H-5 PEOTONE L-28, H-5 113.2 EON NEO Chan 79 N41^ 16.18' - W87^ 47.46' NEWTT L-28 N41 03.54' BRADFORD W88 04.60' DANVILLE 114.7 BDF B ROBERTS L-27 111.0 DNV D FD N EC-3, 03 JUL 2008 to 31 Chan 94 V 116.8 RBS R Chan 47 B GUIDO N41^ 09.58' S Chan 115 N40^ 17.42' N40 17.63' W89^ 35.27' N40^ 34.90' - W88^ 09.86' W87^ 51.81' W87 33.43' L-27, H-5 L-27, H-5 H-5 L-27, H-5 T DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION TAKE-OFF RWYS 4L/R: Northbound departures assigned headings 360^ (CW) thru 080^, Climbing right turn to 2400 heading 100^ before proceeding on course, thence.
  • Temperature Immersion Thermistor and Rtd Sensors St-W* Series

    Temperature Immersion Thermistor and Rtd Sensors St-W* Series

    TEMPERATURE IMMERSION THERMISTOR AND RTD SENSORS ST-W* SERIES DESCRIPTION The PreCon Model ST-W* Immersion Thermistor and RTD Sensor provides precision remote temperature sensing for building automation systems and mechanical equipment room instrumentation. The active sensing element is a highly stable precision thermistor material or platinum RTD. TCC-12 The sensing element is sealed with a temperature conductive compound in a 4-7/8" (12.4 cm) stainless steel tube and brass fitting. A brass thermowell is the standard well provided with each sensor. A Greenfield connector is factory installed for NEW!flexible connection. The sensor probe assembly is removable from the thermowell for replacement without draining the system. FEATURES • Lifetime warranty • ±0.36°F (±0.2°C) thermistor accuracy ST-W24 • ±1°F (0.53°C) RTD accuracy WEL-B • Wide selection of thermistor and RTD curves • Brass thermowell for quick temperature response • Adaptable with many options • Easy to mount and remove from thermowell • Waterproof stainless steel probe APPLICATION OPTIONS The Model ST-W* is a waterproof sensor featuring a 304 • 304 stainless steel well, maximum temperature 900°F stainless steel probe and brass fitting. The fitting has a 1/2" (482°C),maximum pressure 3000 psig (20,685 kPa) NPT female threads to accept the standard Greenfield fitting. • Handy-box enclosure It has 1/8" NPT male threads for installing into a furnished • Custom lengths (wells available) TEMPERATURE WEL-B thermowell. The thermowells are designed with close • 1/2" LB conduit fitting tolerances, eliminating the need for thermal grease under • Liquid-tight fitting normal conditions. Each well is designed so that the sensor • Weather resistant box assembly can be easily removed after installation.
  • Keyword Index

    Keyword Index

    Neuropsychopharmacology (2014) 39, S692–S709 & 2014 American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. All rights reserved 0893-133X/14 www.neuropsychopharmacology.org Keyword Index 10q24.32 . ............... ................T156 Adolescent Depression . .M198 22q11....................................T37 adolescent development . M100, W223, M133 4-Chlorokynurenine . ....................... W226 adolescent stress . .........................M21 5-HT2A receptor . ....................... W196 ADRA1A . ........................T262 5-HT2C . ................................M130 adrenergic receptor . ....................... W205 5-HT3 receptors........................... W246 adult....................................W82 5-HT7 . ................................ M93 Adversity. ........................M199 5C-CPT . ................................W62 aerobic . ........................M163 5HT5A receptor antagonist....................W191 affective disorders . ........................W80 [11C]carfentanil............................M143 affective neuroscience . M167 affective priming . ........................M112 A African American . ........................T197 aggression . ........... M78, M211, T154, W74 aging..........W31, M181, M223, T54, W30, W31, W227, ABCB gene . ............................ W75 M141, M156, M232, W5, W104 ABCB1 . ................................T254 Agomelatine . ........................W210 Abuse Liability ........................... W160 Agonist . ....................... M266 Abuse Potential ............................W165 agoraphobia
  • Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Federation of American Scientists Special Report No 3 May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN 1 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 2 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Acknowledgments e following people provided valuable input and edits: Katie Colten, Mary-Kate Cunningham, Robert Nurick, Stephen Pifer, Nathan Pollard, and other reviewers who wish to remain anonymous. is report was made possible by generous support from the Ploughshares Fund. Analysis of satellite imagery was done with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Image: personnel of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy load a B61 nuclear bomb trainer onto a F-16 fighter-bomber (Image: U.S. Air Force). 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy.
  • (CPC) Outreach Journal #1097

    (CPC) Outreach Journal #1097

    USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) Outreach Journal Issue No. 1097, 10 January 2014 Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal! As part of the CPC’s mission to develop Air Force, DoD, and other USG leaders to advance the state of knowledge, policy, and practices within strategic defense issues involving nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, we offer the government and civilian community a source of contemporary discussions on unconventional weapons. These discussions include news articles, papers, and other information sources that address issues pertinent to the U.S. national security community. It is our hope that this information resources will help enhance the overall awareness of these important national security issues and lead to the further discussion of options for dealing with the potential use of unconventional weapons. The CPC is seeking submissions for its annual General Charles A. Horner award, which honors the best original writing on issues relating to Air Force counter-WMD and nuclear enterprise operations. The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2014. For more information, please visit our web-site. The following news articles, papers, and other information sources do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved. FEATURED ITEM: “Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad: US Strategic Modernization over the Next Thirty Years.” By Jon B. Wolfsthal, Jeffrey Lewis, Marc Quint, January 7, 2014. http://cns.miis.edu/trillion_dollar_nuclear_triad/index.htm The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) announces the release of its latest publication, "The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad: US Strategic Modernization over the Next Thirty Years." The report concludes that the United States will likely spend over $1 trillion during the next three decades to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and purchase their replacement systems.
  • Important Figures in the NSC

    Important Figures in the NSC

    Important Figures in the NSC Nixon Administration (1969-1973) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon Vice President: Spiro Agnew Secretary of State: William Rogers Secretary of Defense: Melvin Laird Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA): Henry Kissinger Director of CIA: Richard Helms Chairman of Joint Chiefs: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Director of USIA: Frank Shakespeare Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness: Brig. Gen. George Lincoln National Security Council Review Group (established with NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Rep. of Secretary of State: John N. Irwin, II Rep. of Secretary of Defense: David Packard, Bill Clements Rep. of Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Rep. of Director of CIA: Richard Helms, James R. Schlesinger, William E. Colby National Security Council Senior Review Group (NSDM 85—replaces NSCRG/ NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Director of Central Intelligence: Richard Helms Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Under Secretary’s Committee: Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II APNSA: Henry Kissinger Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Gen. Earle G. Wheeler / Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Director of CIA: Richard M. Helms Nixon/Ford Administration (1973-1977) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon (1973-1974) Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Vice President: Gerald Ford (1973-1974) Secretary of State: Henry Kissinger Secretary of Defense: James Schlesinger / Donald Rumsfeld APNSA: Henry Kissinger / Brent Scowcroft Director of CIA: Richard Helms / James R.
  • Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture

    Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture

    Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE 1776 Eye St, NW | Suite 600 | Washington DC 20006 www.nti.org Steve Andreasen, Isabelle Williams, Brian Rose, @NTI_WMD Hans M. Kristensen, and Simon Lunn www.facebook.com/nti.org Foreword by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn ABOUT THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE The Nuclear Threat Initiative works to protect our lives, environment, and quality of life now and for future generations. We work to prevent catastrophic attacks with weapons of mass destruction and disruption (WMDD)—nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical, and cyber. Founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner, who continue to serve as co-chairs, NTI is guided by a prestigious, international board of directors. Ernest J. Moniz serves as chief executive officer and co-chair; Des Browne is vice chair; and Joan Rohlfing serves as president. www.nti.org Cover: A Dutch F-16 takes off from Leeuwarden Airbase in the Netherlands in 2011. PHOTO BY ROBIN UTRECHT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture Steve Andreasen Isabelle Williams Brian Rose Hans M. Kristensen Simon Lunn Foreword by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn January 2018 The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of NTI, its Board of Directors, or other institutions with which the authors are associated. © 2018 Nuclear Threat Initiative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holder.