Content Type

Nuclear Security after the Washington Summit

The Washington summit on nuclear security delivered some positive outcomes. But it is imperative that states do not now become complacent; there is much still left to do to ensure that nuclear weapons and material do not fall into the wrong hands. The ultimate gauge of the summit’s success will be whether actions now follow words. Published originally in the RUSI Journal, June/July 2010, Vol. 155, No. 3.

To view the entire article, please select “Full article (PDF)” below.

 

 

Arabs seek to challenge Israel’s nuclear program at energy summit

“The Israelis and the Americans point to the fact that the Iranians have made a very public commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty – not to acquire nuclear weapons – whereas Israel is legally able to develop its arsenal.”….. “But the legal defense and the defense that Israel developed its weapons a while ago is hardly a defense in terms of justice”

vanguard4

Latest on the Trident replacement delay

Suggestions surfaced publicly today that the UK Ministry of Defence is considering a delay to the main gate for Trident replacement – the point at which a decision is taken to start actual construction of the submarines – until 2015/16, after the next election.

BASIC understands that these discussions have been ongoing throughout August, and that the decision has been made on the basis of accountability and the political context.

The thinking goes something like this.

US Senate Foreign Relations Committee sends nuclear weapons treaty to full Senate

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee today voted to refer the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to the full Senate. If the treaty successfully goes through the ratification processes in the United States and Russia, the treaty will cap deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 in both countries and establish a set of mutual inspections that have not had a formal framework since the first START treaty lapsed last December.

Dropping nuclear submarine policy has benefits

Paul Ingram wrote the lead letter in the Financial Times, arguing that “there are in fact substantial financial benefits” to ending the requirement that the United Kingdom maintain a nuclear submarine at sea at all times. “Not only would the current running costs be reduced, but so too would the total substantial capital costs…”

Read the full letter on the website of the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afb28048-c056-11df-8a81-00144feab49a.html

Update on New START in The Cable

Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has distributed a “discussion draft” of the New START Treaty Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification. An article in The Cable reviews reaction to the draft and related political developments in Washington.

To read the article, visit:

Scott Brown and the bombs in the basement

 “Unfortunately, the nuclear capability of Israel goes unmentioned in his article, highlighting the Arab contention that the West is guilty of double standards by shielding Israel but punishing Iran.”

Excerpt from article by BASIC Program Director Anne Penketh, written for The Hill’s Congress Blog

Read the full article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/117393-scott-brown-and-the-bombs-in-the-basement