Nuclear Issues

Dr Olli Heinonen, S. Rajaratnam Professor of Strategic Studies, on 25 October 2016, in a RSIS seminar at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

On October 15, 2014, Matthew Bunn presented "Strengthening Nuclear Security Through Bilateral Cooperation: What Next?" for the Stanley Foundation "Strategy for Peace" Conference in Washington, D.C.

On October 1, 2014, MTA/ISP Senior Research Fellow Trevor Findlay presented "The IAEA’s Nuclear Safeguards Culture: ‘Candy Concept’ or Powerful Prism?" as part of the Project on Managing the Atom Seminar Series.

On July 31, 2014, Matthew Bunn and William H. Tobey presented, "Cutting Too Deep: The Obama Administration’s Proposals for Nuclear Security Spending Reductions" at a briefing jointly sponsored by the Project on Managing the Atom and the Nuclear Threat Initative in Washington, D.C.

Hui Zhang presented "Strengthening China-U.S. Cooperation on Nuclear Security" at the U.S.-China Nonproliferation and Nuclear Security Dialogue in Washington, D.C., June 26–27, 2014.

At 6:00 PM on October 3, 2013, George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies and
Director of the Nuclear Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, gave the 2013 Robert McNamara Lecture on War and Peace, titled "Preventing Nuclear War in South Asia: Unprecedented Challenges, Unprecedented Solutions."

President Rouhani's initiative to restart nuclear negotiations has been met with deep skepticism in Israel. Haifa University political scientist Ehud Eiran and MTA Executive Director Martin Malin suggest in the current issue of The Washington Quarterly that Israel's framing of, and response to, the Iranian nuclear program is a product of four distinct fears: existential threat, strategic risk, socio-economic erosion, and a challenge to founding principles. Understanding the sources and consequences of these fears can help policy makers avoid dangerous pitfalls and missed opportunities in their response to the current Iranian initiative.

This seminar considered how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reacted to nuclear crises. The IAEA often appears not just to have weathered such crises, but to have successfully leaped through windows of opportunity presented by them. This has resulted in periodic expansions of its mandate, capabilities, and resources. The 2011 Fukushima disaster appears to be a puzzling exception, raising the question of what concatenation of factors needs to be present for the IAEA to take advantage of nuclear crises.

Professor Findlay analyzed the response of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the March 2011 nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima, Japan. He compared the expectations that the Agency, its member states, and other nuclear stakeholders had of the IAEA's role in such a situation with the harsh reality. Drawing on these insights, he suggested possibilities for strengthening the Agency's capacities for handling the next Fukushima.

In the Doomsday Clock issue of the Bulletin, the author takes a look at five events that unfolded in 2011 and that seem certain to cast a powerful shadow in months and years to come. No new breakthroughs occurred, the author writes, adding that 2012 could be a much more difficult year.