Blog

FISSILE MATERIAL
NKorea threatens to expand nuclear arsenal
AP by Jae-Soon Chang

Iran’s Politics Stand in the Way of a Nuclear Deal
NYT by Michael Slackman

Iran’s Military Power Subject to New U.S. Study Used for China
Bloomberg by Viola Gienger

Mixed Signals From West About Trusting Russia
NYT by John Vinocur

FISSILE MATERIAL
N. Korea appears to have restored plutonium-generating plant: officials
Yonhap News by Sam Kim

Iran suggests it not ready to export uranium
Associated Press by George Jahn

Russia “simulates” nuclear attack on Poland
Daily Telegraph by Matthew Day

Mixed Signals from West About Trusting Russia
New York Times by John Vinocur

The CSBA’s relatively new report titled “US Nuclear Forces: Meeting the Challenge of a Proliferated World” argues that nuclear policy is focused too much on ideal solutions at the behest of ignoring tough questions in the “what happens if we don’t succeed” world. It says:

Given these formidable barriers, even those who continue to advocate for a nuclear free world might see the virtue in developing a “Plan B” policy should their ambitious objectives fail to materialize. Indeed, based on the analysis to this point, it appears likely the future we will inhabit will see a significantly more proliferated world than that which exists today. Prudent planning requires that this future — unpleasant to contemplate though it may be — and its implications for US nuclear forces be examined as well, rather than be shunted aside through willful ignorance on our part.

At its core, the argument certainly has some merit: we need to be thinking about the “what if” questions should we lose on issues like Iran and as a result see some nuclear dominoes fall, even if people disagree on the likelihood of that happening. The report recommendations were “modest” and discuss topics such as counterproliferation, assisting friendly nuclear armed states with safety, and consequence mitigation activities that many people could get on board with.

Scholar Dilip Hiro has come forward with an interesting article on why Obama's approach to Iran is unlikely to bring about the changes that the U.S.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report
NYT by David E. Sanger, Steven Erlanger, and Robert F. Worth

US trying to gauge Iran nuclear response: Clinton
AFP

The Return of Israel's Existential Dread
WSJ by Yossi Klein Halevi

Russia to boost Obama with nuclear treaty: report
AFP

Panel 6 looked beyond the arsenals of the US and the UK to evaluate the views on nuclear debates from other countries. From a broad level, there was a discussion about how countries around the world perceive U.S. nuclear policies and what the possible implications are for U.S. policy moving forward.

After the first day addressed a variety of broadly international nuclear issues, Panel Five turned inwards to focus on the conference’s host country and discuss “Key Issues Affecting UK Nuclear Posture.” The focal points of the discussion were how the UK could approach a scaled down submarine-based Trident force and ballistic missile defense, specifically the effect of the U.S

FISSILE MATERIAL
The Next Steps on Nonproliferation
Foreign Policy by Hillary Rodham Clinton

US Must Plan for Nuke Wars
DOD Buzz by Greg Grant

Iran to propose two amendments to IAEA deal: report
AFP

Why Iran Will Push Back on the West's Nuclear Offer
Time by Tony Karon