In the arms control community, the third pillar of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) -- the right to peacefully use nuclear energy -- is like the ugly duckling, marginalized while the other two pillars -- non-proliferation and disarmament -- are more loudly championed.

Nonetheless, the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy technology is an equal pillar of the treaty, and an increasingly important one as the international community struggles to grapple with climate change.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

One year ago in Prague, President Obama pledged that the Nuclear Posture Review “will put an end to Cold War thinking” and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.”

The Review, which was released today after nearly a year of analysis, outlines many important and valuable steps that the U.S. will take toward that end.  "While the Review could have been bolder in some areas, according to Deputy Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Kingston Reif, "it constructively reorients U.S. nuclear policy to reflect the fact that changing technologic, strategic, and geopolitical circumstances have made it possible and essential for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons."

Overall, the Nuclear Posture Review is a significant improvement over the two previous Nuclear Posture Reviews conducted since the end of the Cold War.  "The encouraging steps outlined in the report should not be viewed as the end of the journey toward reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, but they point us in the right direction," said Executive Director John Isaacs.

On the positive side, the Nuclear Posture Review places preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism atop the U.S. nuclear agenda.  It also significantly reduces the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security by stating that the “fundamental” role of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the U.S. and its allies and limiting the circumstances under which the U.S. would contemplate using nuclear weapons.  Both of these measures will be helpful in strengthening the U.S. hand at the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May.  Furthermore, the Review reaffirms that the U.S. will not conduct nuclear explosive tests and rejects the development of new nuclear weapons.  The Review also supports further discussions with Moscow on even deeper bilateral reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals – including non-deployed and non-strategic (i.e. tactical nuclear weapons) – beyond those called for in the New START agreement.

Though the positives significantly outweigh the negatives, the report stops short of saying that the “sole” purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the U.S. and its allies nor does it call for the U.S. to adopt a “no first use” policy.  The U.S. does not need nuclear weapons for any other purpose but deterrence.  A “sole purpose” and “no first use” declaration would have further strengthened the credibility of the U.S. conventional deterrent and reduced the incentives that other states might have to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a U.S. first strike.

The Review also does not recommend that the U.S. abandon its current launch on warning or launch under attack posture.  Maintaining such a posture increases the chances of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Afghan National Police, courtesy ISAF

When last month’s Operation Moshtarak descended upon the provincial town of Marjah, there was much justifiable skepticism amongst the policy community.  In the history of the long engagement in Afghanistan, operations designed to clear an area were common, while holding and building upon that progress was less frequently seen.  The New York Times neatly summarized the typical pattern:

For much of the past eight years, American and NATO forces have mounted other large military operations to clear towns and cities of Taliban insurgents. And then, almost invariably, they have cleared out, never leaving behind enough soldiers or police officers to hold the place on their own. And so, almost always, the Taliban returned — and, after a time, so did the American and NATO troops, to clear the place all over again. “Mowing the grass,” the soldiers and Marines derisively call it.

Moving Away from Mowing the Grass

Enter the UK’s Major General Gordon Messenger, who spoke yesterday at the New America Foundation about how to prevent a cyclical pattern of “mowing the grass” of insurgency in Afghanistan...

Read more

Iraq & Afghanistan (all tags)

There’s been a lot of buzz recently over the use of a containment strategy to curtail the threat – or the eventuality – of a nuclear Iran.  David Sanger wrote a piece in the New York Times that followed on the heels of an article in Foreign Affairs by the duo James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh; both discussed how containment could be employed to peacefully co-exist with a hostile Iranian regime.  

While the implication that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a foregone conclusion - which the Foreign Affairs article title (After Iran Gets the Bomb) suggests - is a little heavy on the fearmongering and designed more to attract readers than fairly represent the Iranian nuclear situation, the result has undoubtedly been increased attention to the spectre of a nuclear Iran...

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog, containment (all tags)

The World Institute for Nuclear Security has a pretty sweet essay contest going on that students and professionals in the field might want to check out.  Details direct from their site:

In order to generate new ideas and insights into the burgeoning field of nuclear security, WINS has created an exciting essay competition with 6 prize winners. Winners of the grand prize in the student and professional essay competitions will receive the following:

1. A monetary award of 1,000 Euros.
   
2. An invitation to present at a special WINS event in Vienna, Austria. Travel and lodging will be reimbursed.
   
3. Publication by WINS in a special volume on nuclear security.

That's right... 1,000 Euros, a trip to Vienna, and publication!  Deadline is 9 April 2010.  More info here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

IDP Camp in Afghanistan

The International Security Assistance Force – otherwise known as the American-led NATO force in Afghanistan – launched Operation Moshtarak in the Helmand province last week.  The largest military operation in Afghanistan since the initial invasion in 2001, Operation Moshtarak is the debut of ISAF’s new “civilian-friendly” attitude.

NATO announced that their new strategy was to center on protecting civilians and building up local support rather than focusing predominately on pursuing insurgent militants without explicit consideration for the largely non-combatant populations in which they take refuge.

However, the strategy has proven messier to implement than the military’s rhetoric suggested.  In Marjah, civilians have been used as human shields, while the economic and social infrastructure of the town has been riddled with bullets and laced with improvised explosive devices.  The Associated Press reported that:

Shops were riddled with bullet holes. Grocery stores and fruit stalls had been left standing open, hastily deserted by their owners. White metal fences marked off areas that had not yet been cleared of bombs.

Avoiding negative impacts on civilians during a massive urban operation is impossible, it seems.

However, while an explicit effort to minimize civilian casualties is to be lauded, General McCrystal’s strategy seems to have wholly neglected the displacement of civilians that his operation has caused.  For instance, General McCrystal rapidly apologized to President Karzai after a NATO airstrike today killed at least 27 civilians – most, if not all, of whom were women and children– but has been silent on the forced internal migration that the operation has caused.

Read more

Iraq & Afghanistan (all tags)

Remarks of Vice President Biden
National Defense University
Washington, DC
February 18, 2010
The Path to Nuclear Security:
Implementing the President’s Prague Agenda

Ladies and gentlemen; Secretaries Gates and Chu; General Cartwright; Undersecretary Tauscher; Administrator D’Agostino; members of our armed services; students and faculty; thank you all for coming.

At its founding, Elihu Root gave this campus a mission that is the very essence of our national defense: “Not to promote war, but to preserve peace by intelligent and adequate preparation to repel aggression.” For more than a century, you and your predecessors have heeded that call. There are few greater contributions citizens can claim.

Many statesmen have walked these grounds, including our Administration’s outstanding National Security Advisor, General Jim Jones. You taught him well. George Kennan, the scholar and diplomat, lectured at the National War College in the late 1940s. Just back from Moscow, in a small office not far from here, he developed the doctrine of Containment that guided a generation of Cold War foreign policy.

Some of the issues that arose during that time seem like distant memories. But the topic I came to discuss with you today, the challenge posed by nuclear weapons, continues to demand our urgent attention....

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Obama Administration, New START, CTBT, 2011 Budget Request (all tags)

Ahmadinejad tours Natanz

Less than a week after declaring to the international community that Iran was increasing its uranium enrichment from 3.5 to 20 percent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the efforts were successful and that Iran should be considered among the nuclear countries of the world.  

Making his declaration at an event in Azadi Square in Tehran to commemorate the thirty-first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad insisted that the uranium enriched to 20% was for peaceful purposes.  “The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to build nuclear bombs, we would announce it publicly without being afraid of you,” he told the crowd assembled for the observation of the anniversary.  

Uranium enriched to 20% U235 is considered highly enriched uranium that could be further enriched with relative ease to make a nuclear weapon.  Iran claims that the enriched uranium will be used in a research reactor to produce medical isotopes.  Tehran backed away from an earlier international offer to further enrich its low-enriched uranium outside the country, raising concerns that Iran’s intentions may not be as benign as it is making them out to be...

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)