• Mar 31, 2010


    China struggles with stance on nuclear power as summit nears
    WP by John Pomfret
    CIA Sees Iran Approaching Nuke Capability
    Pakistan Court Keeps Khan Ban
    WSJ by Zahid Hussain
    Fissile Material Ban Should Include Civilian HEU, Experts Say
    GSN by Rachel Oswald
    U.S. hopes nuclear arms pact to be ratified this year
    WP by Reuters
  • Mar 30, 2010

    By Chris Jones

    Murmurings that have been made in off the record meetings for some time now have been aired publicly in a big way: there are serious disagreements about how the unclassified summary of the 2009 JASON report is being interpreted when compared to the classified version of the report. Responding to a request from Michael Turner, ranking member on the Strategic Forces subcommittee, the three laboratory directors have submitted letters to turner giving their take on the study. I cannot yet find copies of the letter but according to Politico :

    In letters responding to Turner, the lab directors said the unclassified version failed to spell out all the risks involved in modernizing weapons over the long term. “The JASON report states that the lifetimes of today’s nuclear weapons could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in [Life-Extension Programs] to date. I do not agree with this assertion,” Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio wrote. “The available mitigation actions…are reaching their limits.” Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller said the JASON report’s executive summary “understates the risks and challenges” of modernizing the arsenal and warned of “increasing risk in our ability to certify the safety and reliability of our Cold War stockpile into the indefinite future.”

    NNSA Spokesman Damien LaVera also followed up on the administration’s November statement indicating possible disconnect between the two document last Thursday:

    The November 2009 JASON report confirmed key challenges associated with adding performance margin and incorporating modern safety and security features into aging nuclear weapons systems. It also supported the emerging bipartisan consensus on the need to preserve our workforce, build a modern nuclear security infrastructure, and enhance the science, technology and engineering at our laboratories and plants

    What does this all mean? A few things.

  • Mar 29, 2010


    Questions Abound as "New START" Agreement is Completed
    GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

    Pakistan nuclear ambitions give US leverage
    AFP Google by Shaun Tandon

    Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Viability of Arsenals
    NY Times by William J. Broad

    Foreign secretary urges more nuclear weapons cuts
    BBC News

    Agencies Suspect Iran Is Planning Atomic Sites
    NY Times by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad

  • Mar 26, 2010

    By Chris Jones

  • Mar 25, 2010

    China joins Iran sanctions talks
    Turtle Bay (Foreign Policy) by Colum Lynch

    U.S. Softens Sanction Plan Against Iran
    WSJ by David Crawford, Richard Boudreaux, Joe Lauria and Jay Solomon

    United States and Russia reach nuclear-arms deal
    WP by Mary Beth Sheridan and Philip P. Pan

    Pakistan judge delays ruling on nuclear scientist

    U.S. must get its nuclear house in order before April Security Summit
    The Hill by Peter Stockton and Ingrid Drake

  • Mar 24, 2010

    Breakthrough Is Reported in U.S. Arms Pact With Russia
    NYT by Peter Baker and Ellen Barry

    Russia, China urged Iran to change nuclear stance
    Reuters by Louis Charbonneau

    US noncommittal on Pakistan's nuclear desires
    WP by Matthew Lee (AP)

    Australia, Japan Submit Disarmament Proposals For NPT Review Conference

    Fixing Missile Defense
    NYT Editorial

  • Mar 24, 2010

    PONI is happy to announce the second event of the 2010 "PONI Debates the Issues" series.   Departing from the traditional debate format used to this point, the event will feature a panel discussion on the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that will likely generate debate within the panelists.  The panelists include: 

    Douglas Feith, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

    Clark Murdock, Senior Adviser, CSIS

    Ivan Oelrich, Vice President, Strategic Security Programs, Federation of American Scientists

    The logistical details for the event are as follows:

    Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010

    Time: 5:30 - 7:45 pm

    Location: CSIS B1 Conference Center (1800 K St NW)

    To RSVP for the event, please contact Chris Jones here or by phone at (202) 775-3234.


  • Mar 23, 2010

    Jimmy Carter calls on U.S., S. Korea to talk directly with N. Korea
    Yonhap News by Byun Duk-kun

    Senators pressure Obama on Iran sanctions
    The Cable (Foreign Policy) by Josh Rogin

    Pakistan pushes US for nuclear technology deal
    The Guardian by Saeed Shah

    Officials Outline Missile Defense Goals
    GSN by Otto Kreisher (CongressDaily)

    There's still nothing new on Iran
    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Op-ed by Ivan Oelrich and Ivanka Barzashka

  • Mar 22, 2010

    Obama to Iranians: We want brighter future for you
    Yahoo! News by Philip Elliott (AP)

    Pakistan seeks to probe nuclear secrets scientist
    Reuters by Kamran Haider

    India to examine its NPT options ahead of nuclear summit
    Hindustan Times by Indo-Asian News Service

    Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Tradeoffs
    GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

    US trains nuclear detectives to trace 'loose' nukes
    CSM by Peter N. Spotts

  • Mar 19, 2010

    By Andrew St. Denis

    Tuesday on the Hill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its hearing on the nomination of Robert Ford as U.S. Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic, the first in five years.

Syndicate content