Nuclear Issues

65 Items

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow following President Trump's announcement of U.S. plans to withdraw from the INF Treaty. October 23, 2018.

en.kremlin.ru

Analysis & Opinions - The Hill

Trump’s INF Announcement: Another Gift to Putin?

| Oct. 25, 2018

Pulling out of the INF Treaty would be a strategic blunder. It would free Russia to deploy currently prohibited missiles without constraint and further undermine U.S. credibility with our allies. The United States would shoulder the blame for the collapse of one of the two remaining U.S.-Russian agreements controlling nuclear weapons. U.S. withdrawal would remove valuable verification mechanisms and introduce additional U.S. and Russian uncertainty regarding the other’s nuclear forces and intentions.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during their joint news conference at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland. July 16, 2018 (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press).

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

Analysis & Opinions - The Hill

The Sobering Reasons Congress Must Step Up On Arms Control

| July 19, 2018

Congress is asserting itself by passing additional sanctions to hold Russia accountable for its meddling in U.S. elections. Now it needs to step up its work on arms control — not despite the current tensions with Russia, but because of them.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meet at the 2017 G-20 Hamburg Summit (Kremlin.ru/Wikimedia Commons).

Kremlin.ru/Wikimedia Commons

Analysis & Opinions - The Boston Globe

Trump and Putin Face an Urgent Arms Control Deadline in Helsinki

| July 12, 2018

As US-Russian relations continue to deteriorate, Presidents Trump and Putin appear eager to find common ground on arms control when they meet in Helsinki on Monday. The reason for their urgency is clear: The framework that has stabilized the US-Russian strategic balance since the fall of the Soviet Union is in danger of collapsing.

Analysis & Opinions - Russia Matters

25 Years of Nuclear Security Cooperation by the US, Russia and Other Newly Independent States: A Timeline

The timeline below was compiled by Simon Saradzhyan and Mariana Budjeryn and the foreword was written by William Tobey (author bios below). As an accompaniment, Ms. Budjeryn has also interviewed Sam Nunn, the former senator whose efforts were key to securing U.S. funding to help a disintegrating Soviet Union dismantle and safeguard its nuclear weapons. The timeline authors would like to thank former RM student associate Andre Gellerman for his research support and Susan Koch for her insightful comments. This is an evolving draft, produced in cooperation with the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and with support from the center's Managing the Atom Project. A bibliography can be found at the bottom of the page.

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

Trump’s Silence on Russian Missiles Makes America Less Safe

| Mar. 07, 2017

Russia presents security challenges to the United States and its allies for which the Trump administration has yet to indicate any kind of a policy direction or goals. In the nuclear arena, none of these challenges are more acute than Russia’s ongoing violation of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. That Treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, banned the Soviet Union and the United States from having or testing ground-launched missiles with ranges between 312 and 3,428 miles.

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

5 Burning Nuclear Problems on Trump’s Desk

| Jan. 25, 2017

Nuclear weapons remain the most powerful weapons on the planet and how President Donald Trump’s team manages nuclear issues is critical to our security. These are hard challenges; none were perfectly addressed under President Obama’s leadership. But we made them a priority from day one. Whether or not the new team puts them at the top of the to-do list, here are five issues that will demand their attention before too long.

Congress is currently debating legislation that would keep funding the MOX factory.

Vlad Podvorny

Analysis & Opinions - The Hill

Cancel the Plutonium Fuel Factory

| July 18, 2016

Twenty years ago, in the Clinton Administration, both of us helped launch a program to build a factory to turn the excess plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear reactors.  At that time, the full life-cycle cost estimate to make this plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel was expected to be less than $2 billion dollars.  Now, however, with official cost estimates ballooning to over $30 billion, it is clear that the project has become too expensive.  It is time to stop throwing good money after bad and pursue cheaper alternatives that will serve our national security better.

Analysis & Opinions

U.S. can't ignore rising nuclear danger

| June 29, 2016

"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are once again trading barbs over who has the right disposition to be president -- including who is best suited to have a "finger on the button. It is, of course, not unusual for candidates to critique each other's qualifications. But there is a good reason why assessing the candidates' judgment and temperament is particularly important: The president of the United States has complete authority over more than 1,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch...."

Analysis & Opinions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Where Will the Next President Stand on Nuclear Weapons?

| May 3, 2016

"From Hiroshima to the Cuban Missile Crisis, from arms races to arms control, from the Cold War and its proxy wars to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2015 deal with Iran, few subjects have so consistently, and so controversially, concerned the American presidency as nuclear weapons have. A dozen men have been responsible for the decision to use the US nuclear arsenal since 1945, and whoever wins the election in November will inherit the responsibility for approximately 4,670 warheads at a time when relations with Russia (holder of 4,500 warheads) have reached a perilous low, a time when support for arms control is perhaps faltering, and a time when nuclear threats abound from the Middle East to the Korean Peninsula..."