International Security

The Obama administration has proposed steep cuts in funding for improving security for dangerous nuclear materials. If approved, they would slow progress toward preventing the essential ingredients of nuclear bombs from falling into terrorist hands. Cutting too Deep reviews funding trends over the past four years and describes how the proposed cuts would delay nuclear and radiological material removal, research reactor conversion, and other work.

"Having a professional military means that the United States can go to war while the vast majority of citizens are not directly affected. Therefore it falls upon the president, more than any other individual, to make sure the nation goes to war only if and when absolutely necessary."

"Blocking a company owned by foreign nationals from working on a domestic construction project is a striking move. It's been 22 years since any president has required a foreign company to divest all interests in an American project. These cases involve neither war nor diplomacy, but rather the other tools available to a president to protect American interests. We don't hear much about the lawyers these days, but legal and regulatory decisions are an essential aspect of national security strategy."

The following report presents a consensus view of the members of a bipartisan study group on the U.S.-Japan alliance. The report specifically addresses energy, economics and global trade, relations with neighbors, and security-related issues. Within these areas, the study group offers policy recommendations for Japan and the United States, which span near- and long-term time frames. These recommendations are intended to bolster the alliance as a force for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

"Rohlfs and Sullivan challenge the rather sophomoric belief that the bigger the Pentagon's budget, the better the security. Ratcheting up and ratcheting down are the wrong paradigm. The better way to reduce spending is to embrace a ratchet-across theory. The question then becomes less about whether a particular program saves lives, but whether there are cheaper alternatives with the same result."

"Barring a dramatic event like a terrorist attack or a meltdown of historic proportions in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan — even foreign policy will be viewed through the prism of the economy. Support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low, driven in large part by the humongous amount of treasure — in both blood and dollars — we have spent in a place that seems as resistant to a western view of government as ever."

"The economy and our national security are inextricably linked. What we pay for and how we pay for it are decisions that are not simply about domestic economic policy. Likewise, the choices we make about our commitment to two wars and our willingness to engage in future wars have dramatic economic consequences."

"This has to do with the nature of military investments. The Center for International Policy details that military spending is more often capital intensive, not labor intensive. Take a single F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Only 1.5 percent of its total costs (estimates are about $200 million per plane) are spent on labor to assemble and manufacture the entire aircraft."