Live Debate Series

Part of the:

The debate series, an extension of the PDI blog, features top experts debating controversial nuclear issues one-on-one.

As an extension of the PONI Debates the Issues (PDI) blog, PONI periodically hosts live debates on urgent or otherwise controversial nuclear issues and policies. The debate format permits a more dynamic, free-flowing exchange of ideas than what typically transpires during moderated panel discussions, lectures, and presentations, resulting in an enriched yet focused examination of critical issues. The objective is not to determine winners and losers or to establish the right way to solve a problem, but rather to explore a topic in a manner that elucidates underlying assumptions about the issue at-hand and identifies specific points of agreement and departure. A thorough understanding of the information and assumptions that inform divergent viewpoints on nuclear issues can ultimately lead to better approaches and policy options.

Debate 1 - Resolved: The U.S. federal government should provide the requested funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. Clark Murdock, Senior Advisor, CSIS (Affirmative) vs. Joseph Cirincione, President, Ploughshares Fund (Negative). February 12, 2009. Event page with live video.

Debate 2 - Resolved: The Obama Administration should make the Global Zero vision of a world free of nuclear weapons a central focus of its foreign policy. George Perkovich, Vice President of Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Affirmative) vs. J.D. Crouch, Deputy National Security Adviser and Assistant to President George W. Bush (Negative). April 13, 2009. Event page with live video.

Debate 3 - Resolved: The U.S. Congress should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Daryll Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association (Affirmative) vs. Stephen Rademaker, Senior Counsel, BGR Group, Inc. (Negative). May 13, 2009. Event page with live video.

Debate 4 - Resolved: that the United States should continue the policy of complete and verifiable disarmament of the Korean Peninsula. Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation (Affirmative), vs. Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute (Negative). July 15, 2009. Event page with live video.

Debate 5 - Resolved: that the United States should pursue a negotiated agreement with Russia to de-alert each country's nuclear arsenal by implementing reversible physical changes to substantially increase the time required to launch. John Steinbrunner, Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland (Affirmative), vs. Walter Slocombe, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Negative). November 5, 2009. Event page with live video.

Debate 6 - Resolved: Further reductions in the nuclear arsenal are in the national security interest of the United States. John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (Affirmative) vs. Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. (Negative). February 16, 2010. Event page with live video.

Debate 7 - The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report: Substance and Implications
Three-way Debate with Ivan Oelrich, Vice President for Strategic Security Programs at the Federation of American Scientists vs. Clark Murdock, PONI Director and Senior Adviser at CSIS vs. Doug Feith, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. April 22, 2010. Event page with live video.

Debate 8 - U.S. Nuclear Declaratory Policy. Scott Sagan, Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University vs. Keith Payne, CEO and President of the National Institute for Public Policy. May 25, 2010. Event page with live video and transcript.

Debate 9 - College National Champtions Edition - Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Eric Lanning and Carly Wunderlich, Michigan State University vs. Ovais Inamullah and Stephen Weil, Emory University. June 10, 2010. Event page with live video.

Debate 10 - Ratification of New START. Mort Halperin, Senior Advisor at the Open Society Institute vs. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance. November 30, 2010. Event page with live video.

Debate 11 - The Future of Bilateral Arms Control. Steve Pifer, Director of the Brookings Arms Control Initiative vs. Robert Joseph, Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy. June 29, 2011. Event page with live video.

Debate 12 - Damage Limitation. Keir Lieber, an Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, vs. Dr. James Acton, a Senior Associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. October 6, 2011. Event page with live video.

Multimedia

More Multimedia

Blog

PONI Debates the Issues: Damage Limitation Recap
Oct 11, 2011

By Eli Jacobs

Last Thursday Professor Keir Lieber of Georgetown’s Security Studies program debated Carnegie’s Dr. James Acton on the merits of a nuclear strategy of damage limitation at the CSIS. Lieber took the affirmative, arguing that such a strategy is desirable, while Acton took the negative. The event made for quite lively debate. Indeed, one of the only facts the two debaters agreed upon was the definition of damage limitation: counterforce strikes designed to eliminate an adversary’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons against the U.S. or its allies. In what follows I will summarize the proceedings and propose some of my personal views on this issue.
Future Arms Control Debate Recap
Jul 5, 2011

By Jonah Friedman

Last week the Project on Nuclear Issues hosted a live debate between Robert Joseph of the National Institute for Public Policy, and Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution. The topic was whether another arms control treaty with Russia is in the U.S. national interest. Audio, video, and a transcript can be found here.