Getting to Zero Update

In this issue:

Commitments to disarmament and arms control

US President George Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Sochi in south-western Russia on April 6. The meeting followed a tense NATO Summit in Bucharest and came amid ongoing disagreements over US missile defense proposals for Eastern Europe and the fate of arms control treaties. The meeting, which may be the last one between Bush and Putin as presidents of their countries, resulted in a Strategic Framework Declaration. The Declaration included references to nuclear and conventional arms control, most notably stating that the two countries would “continue development of a legally binding post-START arrangement” [emphasis added]. Previous indications from the Bush Administration (which now has nine months left in office) had placed in doubt whether US officials would pursue such a binding agreement.

The U.N. Disarmament Commission met in substantive session in New York from April 7-25, 2008. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon opened the session by criticizing the lack of progress in recent international meetings on nuclear weapons. The 2nd NPT Preparatory Committee to the 2010 Review Conference started on Monday this week (28th April) in Geneva. Reports and speeches are available on the Reaching Critical Will website.

In an op-ed in the Washington Times on April 2, Ambassadors Thomas Graham and Max Kampelman called for the presidents of the United States and Russia to appear before the U.N. General Assembly and propose a resolution calling for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

Further reading

Renewed UN mandate aims to stop spread of weapons of mass destruction
UN News Centre, April 25, 2008.

Preparing for 2010: Striking a Balance between Nuclear Disarmament & Nuclear Nonproliferation
A CNS workshop report, CNS hosted a two-day diplomatic workshop on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on March 7-8, 2008 in Annecy, France. Report published on April 15, 2008.

Gorbachev Calls for More International Cooperation
Barry Massey, AP via Las Cruces-Sun News, April 14, 2008.

Pelindaba Treaty Resource Page
12th anniversary of the signing in Cairo of the African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, CNS, International Organizations and Nonproliferation Program, April 11, 2008.

Repairing US-Russian Strategic Relations After Bush and Putin
With panelists Ambassador James Goodby, Dr George Lewis, and Ambassador Avis T Bohlen, moderated by Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Association event held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, April 11, 2008.

CTR Program Destroys Final Russian SS-24 Missile
National Journal Group via NTI, April 10, 2008.

Disarmament Commission 2008 Substantive Session 286th & 287th Meetings
April 8, 2008.

Sochi Declaration on Arms Control and Disarmament
Martin Butcher, Bucharest Summit Blog, April 6, 2008.

COMMENTARY: Restoring US nuclear-free leadership
Thomas Graham Jr. and Max Kampelman, Washington Times, April 2, 2008.

Getting Real About Nuclear Disarmament
Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

The Future of Nuclear Disarmament: US and Russian Public Opinion Strongly Supports Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
Bruce Blair, The Defense Monitor, March/April 2008, pp 4-5.

Conference on Disarmament Hears Statements by France, Canada, Chile on Behalf of 10 Latin American Countries, Russia, Iran, and China
United Nations Office at Geneva, News and Media, March 27, 2008.

Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly on Disarmament
Via Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 24, 2008.

Time to Bury a Deadly Legacy, Three-part series in YaleGlobal, A clear agenda combined with determination could prevent a nuclear 9/11,
Graham Allison, March 14, 2008;

Climatic catastrophe would follow regional nuclear conflict
Alan Robock, March 17, 2008

The notion that more nuclear weapons lead to a safe world is irrational
Jonathan Schell, March 19, 2008.

The Future of Nuclear Weapons in an Interdependent World
Harald M�ller, The Washington Quarterly, 31:2; Spring 2008, pp. 63-75.

Time to Outlaw the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Rebecca Johnson, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 87, Spring 2008.

Country updates

United States

Complex Transformation and the “Reliable Replacement Warhead” Program

Directors of the three national laboratories and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on April 16. The director of Lawrence Livermore, George Miller, said that as long as there is investment in “science-based programmatic activities”, the Stockpile Stewardship Program will “continue to be a technical success”. Tom D’Agostino, Director of the NNSA, said that while he believed that the current nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable, “maintaining certification of the finely-tuned designs of the aging Cold War stockpile through Life Extension Programs (LEPs) only, absent nuclear testing, necessarily entails increasing risk over time”. D’Agostino went on to argue that the “reliable replacement warhead [RRW] concepts” would allow for better security against unauthorized use. He did not point to specific evidence that undergirded his concerns.

A day earlier, a group of NGOs (including BASIC) sent a letter to Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, urging Congress to eliminate funding for the RRW program. In part, the letter argued that the United States lacks a comprehensive nuclear weapons policy for the current international security environment and that “Congressional action now to fund such a [RRW] program could prejudge and undermine the integrity” of a recently mandated nuclear weapons policy review.

The NNSA extended the public comment period to April 30 for the draft Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS).

The Secretaries of Energy and Defense sent a white paper to Congress in early April, titled, “National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.” This classified paper is a more extensive version of the July 2007 paper, National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century.

Further reading

Will the Bush Administration’s New Nukes Program Bomb?
Brian Beutler (The Media Consortium), Mother Jones, April 1, 2008.

Complex Transformation: Nuclear Weapons Now, Nuclear Weapons Tomorrow, Nuclear Weapons Forever
Arjun Makhijani, Lisa Ledwidge, and Annie Makhijani, Science for Democratic Action, April 2008.

The “public” discussion about the Energy Department’s Complex Transformation
Hugh Gusterson, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 27, 2008.

Mishandling of nuclear weapons, missiles parts and information

In light of incidents with nuclear weapons and missile parts during the past year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has ordered a full inventory of US nuclear weapons and related materials. The Pentagon announced on March 27 that Secretary Gates gave the orders for the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency and the Air Force to submit a report of their inventory control procedures within 60 days. Two days before, the Pentagon revealed that four ballistic missile nose cone assemblies and electrical components were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in the fall of 2006 and failed to discover the error until a year and a half later. In August 2007, nuclear weapons were accidentally loaded onto a bomber in North Dakota and flown over the United States.

The Deseret Morning News out of Salt Lake City, Utah obtained through the Freedom of Information Act a May 2007 audit of Hill Air Force Base that revealed deficient record-keeping of ballistic missile parts (the shipment to Taiwan had occurred in 2006 from Hill AFB). The audit report warned that weak record-keeping practices could lead to “inadvertent technology transfers.” For the full report, see: Installation Report of Audit F2007-0043-FCI000, Assets at Contractor Facilities Ogden Air Logistics Center Hill AFB Utah, Hill Area Audit Office, May 2007 (posted online by The Deseret Morning News, April 2008).

General John Corley, the head of Air Combat Command, has said that the Air Force is considering whether a single nuclear chain of command would help avoid such problems as the August 2007 nuclear bomber incident in the future. The general suggested that a new chain of command might bring Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and bombers under a single heading called “global effects.”

Ben-Ami Kadish, who served as a mechanical engineer for the US Army, has been charged with sharing classified US nuclear weapons-related documents with Israel. Kadish is suspected of supplying the information to Israeli officials when he worked at the US Army’s Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) based at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey from 1979 to 1985.

US Presidential Elections

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said during a speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on March 26 that the United States should renew its commitment to the NPT. Senator McCain said “We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own,” adding “We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal.”

During a controversial debate in Pennsylvania on April 16, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked whether the United States should treat an attack on Israel as on attack on the United States, with Iran being cited as a key nuclear threat in the future. Senator Clinton said that while the United States should threaten massive retaliation against Iran if it attacks Israel, the United States should create “an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel”. She also said that the United States should conduct low-level diplomacy with Iran, and avoid meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Senator Obama said that he would not take any options off of the table in dealing with an Iranian nuclear threat against Israel or any other allies but he emphasized diplomatic options and that US policy toward Iran should be one of using “carrots and sticks”.

Further reading

America’s Secret Plan to Nuke Vietnam and Laos
Richard S. Ehrlich, Scoop Independent News, April 16, 2008.

Scientists’ Statement on US Nuclear Weapons Policy
Toward True Security, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2008.

US nuclear forces, 2008
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2008.

Radiation Monitors Cannot Reliably Detect Highly Enriched Uranium at US Ports and Border Crossings
Natural Resources Defense Council Press Release, March 25, 2008.


IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen traveled to Tehran on April 21 to discuss with Iranian officials the remaining questions that the IAEA has about alleged weaponization studies. Some Western officials have suggested that the studies, which Heineonen had shown to Iranian officials in February, bolster suspicions that Iran wants to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected the allegations, maintaining that the studies that were submitted as evidence to the IAEA were fabrications and that Iran had answered all outstanding questions from the Agency. An IAEA spokeswoman announced on April 23 that the talks have led to Iran’s willingness to discuss the allegations and further talks between Iranian officials and the IAEA Deputy Director resumed on April 28. Reports were also coming out on the same day saying that Iranian and Russian officials were meeting to work out a deal that would alleviate suspicions that Iran intends to weaponize its nuclear program.

Earlier in April, the IAEA’s Director, Mohammed ElBaradei, urged Iranian leaders to conduct more diplomatic engagement to assuage fears about a possible nuclear weapons program. On April 16, officials from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and the European Union had met in Shanghai to discuss possible ways forward on engagement with Iran, but they failed to reach an agreement. During British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s visit to the United States, he and US President George Bush said at a joint press conference that they were considering how to expand international sanctions against Iran.

On April 8, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had begun installing 6,000 new and modified uranium enrichment centrifuges. (See Andreas Persbo’s Verification Thoughts for more details on conflicting media coverage of the announcement and what it may mean.) Remarking on the announcement, ElBaradei said that Iran possibly had as many as 3,400 centrifuges recently and noted that they were not moving very much, suggesting that production has been very low. He called on Iran not to hasten the process because “we need first to have an agreement with the international community.”

Photos were published in the New York Times of a recent visit on April 8th to the Natanz enrichment facility by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his cabinet members. The NYT article highlighted the importance of the images in providing new information on how far the Iranians have gone in perfecting their technologies, with images in particular of their newer IR-2 centrifuges.

In a television interview on Meet the Press, US Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden said that he personally feels that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program even though the US intelligence community, including the CIA, agreed to a recent National Intelligence Estimate that says Iran had ceased the pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in 2003. conducted a poll of 710 Iranian adults from January 13 to February 9, 2008 and found that 66 percent agreed that Iran should have “a full fuel cycle nuclear energy program, but should not develop nuclear weapons.” When asked specifically whether Iran should develop nuclear weapons, 20 percent said yes. (For more data from the poll, see Public Opinion in Iran with Comparisons to American Public Opinion, poll conducted in partnership with Search for Common Ground and Knowledge Networks, April 7, 2008.)

Further reading

Prospect of Iran nukes frightens Saudi royals ‘to their core’
World Tribune, April 18, 2008.

Briefing notes from February 2008 IAEA meeting regarding Iran’s nuclear program
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), ISIS Report, April 11, 2008.

Summary of Recent United Nations Security Council, European Union, and United States Sanctions Against Iran
Benjamin Radford and Leonard Spector, WMD Insights, April 2008.

Communication dated 26 March 2008 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency
IAEA Information Circular, March 28, 2008.


Indian Foreign Minister Pranap Mukherjee said the government needed more time to reach an agreement with leftists in the government’s ruling coalition before his country could proceed with a deal in which the United States would provide fuel and technology for civilian nuclear reactors. Some Indian political leaders have voiced opposition to the plan because they fear that it will compromise Indian sovereignty, such as the requirement that India refrain from testing nuclear weapons. Many people outside India have opposed the agreement on the grounds that the United States should not be cutting such a deal with a country outside the NPT. In addition, concerns remain that the provision of reactor fuel could free-up India’s own enriched fuel and enable it to produce more nuclear weapons.

On April 22, Indian officials expressed displeasure with the United States for suggestions that India use diplomatic pressure against Iran over its nuclear program ahead of a state visit from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Further reading

Are MIRVs and Satellite Integration and Dispensation Mutually Exclusive? An Analysis of India’s Capabilities
Kartik Bommakanti, Center for Defense Information, April 10, 2008.

Indian Politics Stymie US-Indian Nuclear Deal
Wade Boese, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

Reshaping the US-Indian Nuclear Deal to Lessen the Nonproliferation Losses
Charles D. Ferguson, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

Why the US-India Nuclear Accord is a Bad Deal
Kingston Reif and Leonor Tomero, March 31, 2008.


One week after the swearing in of the new government in Pakistan on March 31, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said there would be no change to the National Command Authority (NCA), which oversees Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal. He explained that the NCA is a constitutional body that is headed by the President, Pervez Musharraf, with the military in control of nuclear weapons. Reuters was reporting that a source close to the new governing coalition said they had no plans to change the nuclear command structure, even though the coalition has a solid majority in parliament and has opposed President Musharraf.

Two workers at Pakistan’s Khushab nuclear plant were killed when a gas leak caused an explosion on April 8. The government said that people outside of the facility were not at any risk of hazardous exposure. The Khushab plant, which is about 250 km/150 miles from Islamabad, has been suspected of producing enriched plutonium for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, although the government claims the plant’s purpose is to produce electricity. The plant had been closed for maintenance when the explosion occurred.

Pakistan test fired the Haft-VI (Shaheen-II) missile on April 19 and 21. The Haft-VI has the longest range of any missiles in Pakistan’s arsenal and can carry nuclear or conventional warheads.

Further reading

South Asia’s Nuclear Decade, Bruce Reidel, Survival, April-May 2008, Abstract. Full article available with subscription only.

Nuclear scientist says he confessed to ‘save’ Pakistan
(Detained Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan), AFP, April 7, 2008.


Bush Administration officials have now come out publicly with evidence saying that the Syrian site that Israel targeted last year was a plutonium reactor. The allegations are particularly serious because of regional security concerns and the impact on other countries’ choices to develop nuclear programs. Syria had not declared the development of a reactor with the IAEA. Furthermore, North Korea is suspected of having provided Syria with the technical know-how to construct the facility, which the Bush Administration believes was not intended for peaceful purposes. Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, responded to the public release of the information, saying that while the purpose of the facility was military, it was not a nuclear plant. Evidence released by the Bush Administration included images of the facility before it was destroyed. The images show a facility that resembles North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear center. However, senior US intelligence officials are saying that they lack firm evidence that Syria was using the reactor to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Following the Bush Administration’s public release of the evidence, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the United States for having withheld information on the site that could have been used by the IAEA to determine its purpose. After the Israeli strike on the facility on September 6, 2007, speculation had persisted as to the purpose of the site without specific comment from the Bush Administration. ElBaradei said that the IAEA would examine the case.

Further reading

Resources on the Israeli Strike in Syria
Secrecy News, Federation of American Scientists, April 28, 2008.

Syria Update III: New information about Al Kibar reactor site
David Albright and Paul Brannan, ISIS Report, April 24, 2008.

North Korea

In mid-April, meetings between the United States and North Korea appeared to have produced some progress, but the Bush Administration’s recent release of evidence of the alleged nuclear facility in Syria and its possible links to North Korea (see section on Syria above) have cast a pall over Six-Party prospects. Christopher Hill met with his counterpart from North Korea, Kim Kye Gwan, in Singapore on April 8 and developments had suggested that the meeting produced a way for the Six-Party talks to resume, possibly as soon as May. The talks have been on hold since disagreement ensued over whether North Korea had provided a complete declaration of its nuclear programs and materials by a December 31, 2007 deadline.

While US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on April 12 that it was too soon to know whether outstanding issues could be resolved to the satisfaction of the United States, the rough details that have emerged indicate that the United States and North Korea would produce a document that would include a statement of US concerns about North Korea’s alleged uranium enrichment program and suspected transfer of nuclear technology to Syria. North Korea would need to “acknowledge” these concerns, halt any nuclear proliferation activities, and provide a list of its plutonium stockpile. The deal may also include US acquiescence in removing North Korea from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, an offer which had been made before. While the more conservative members of the Bush Administration were reportedly unhappy with the compromise, the State Department was emphasizing that the deal will enable inspectors to have access to North Korean nuclear sites and allow for verification.

Speculation persists as to the timing of the Bush Administration’s release of evidence against North Korea and Syria, which includes images that show a facility in Syria which resembles North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear center. The Bush Administration maintains that North Korea must have helped Syria to develop the alleged nuclear plant. Possibly as part of the agreement that came out of the meeting in Singapore, the specific allegation would be on the US list of concerns that North Korea would subsequently need to “acknowledge”. North Korea has apparently been confronted with the specific allegations over the past several months. Christopher Hill said that the United States did not believe that North Korea is continuing to help Syria with a nuclear program and asserted that the Six Party talks will continue. Intelligence officials who were part of a briefing for reporters said that North Korea may have began assisting Syria in 2001, two years before the Six Party talks began.

Meanwhile, members of the US Congress were disturbed that the Bush Administration had not briefed them with the evidence sooner than April 24. An unnamed senior Bush Administration official claimed that some congressional members were briefed last September and October. The Bush Administration will need congressional approval of funding that will probably be necessary to remove plutonium from North Korea and to verify the dismantlement of the nuclear program.

Prior to the meeting in Singapore, tensions were high after North Korea had test-fired several short-range missiles. North Korea also expelled South Korean officials in retaliation for the recently announced harder-line approach of the new South Korean President. On April 20, President George Bush met with the new South Korean, President Lee Myung-bak, at Camp David, but they had not announced any additional developments related to North Korea.

Further reading

Ambassador Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Global Leadership Speaker Series
Transcript of presentation delivered to the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington, D.C., March 25, 2008.

United kingdom & France

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted French President Nicolas Sarkozy at Arsenal Emirates Stadium on March 27 to discuss their plans for pursuing nuclear energy but indicated during a press conference that they had also discussed nuclear weapons proliferation and disarmament issues. They also reviewed a proposal favored by the UK Prime Minister for a uranium bank that would supply nuclear fuel for civilian reactors in exchange for a country’s adherence to the NPT. A week earlier, President Sarkozy had inaugurated a new French nuclear submarine while announcing that he would pare down the French nuclear arsenal. He also had iterated his support for a series of eight steps related to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

The Sunday Herald reported that the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment had stopped “live nuclear work” at the Burghfield plant in Berkshire since December because of numerous and persistent safety concerns. It is unclear what impact this will have on the UK’s logistics in fielding its nuclear deterrent.

Further reading

France and Getting to Zero
Pierce Corden, BASIC’s GTZ Blog, April 9, 2008.

An Unexpected Speech
James Acton, Arms Control Wonk, April 1, 2008.

France Upgrades, Trims Nuclear Arsenal
Wade Boese, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

New French Nuclear Deals in the Middle East Generate Proliferation Concerns
Khalid Hilal and Adam P. Williams, WMD Insights, April 2008.

Nnew Zealand

The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) announced earlier in April at a socially responsible investment conference that it would cease investing in any companies even tangentially involved in the nuclear weapons enterprise. (The ACC is New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme, which provides personal injury insurance for everyone in the country.)

Missile defense

The Bush Administration reported that it had made progress with allies at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania on April 2-4 for its ground-based mid-course ballistic missile defense (GMD) plans in Europe. However, as has been pointed out by analysts (see for example, this transcript of an ACA event and this entry of the Bucharest Summit Blog), the declaration that came out of the summit appeared to report nothing new. Czech and US leaders did announce a diplomatic agreement for the placement of the missile defense radar in the Czech Republic as part of the proposed system, but the deal will still be subjected to Czech parliamentary approval.

Plans for European missile defense continued to come up against opposition from Russia when only a couple of days after the Bucharest Summit President Bush met with President Putin in Sochi, Russia. The White House Fact Sheet on the resulting Strategic Framework Declaration did not hide their disagreements.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Komsomolskaya Pravda on April 17 that his country’s concerns would be ameliorated if the United States simply gave up plans to deploy the missile defense bases in Eastern Europe, but said that Russian and US leaders would continue their dialogue. On April 8, Russian and Polish officials had met to reach an agreement on Russian demands for a permanent presence of Russian officials at the missile defense base proposed for Poland. Minister Lavrov admitted that Czech and Polish officials do not want to consider a permanent Russian presence at all.

The Pentagon announced on April 15 that Raytheon has been awarded a $5 million Missile Defense Agency contract to commence planning for the proposed missile defense radar in the Czech Republic. Raytheon said that the contract could amount to a total of $400 million through 2013.

Meanwhile, prominent scientists and policy analysts testified on April 16 before the US House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. Several panelists (Lisbeth Gronlund, Richard Garwin, and Philip E. Coyle) made the case that the US program on Ground-based missile defense (GMD), including the GMD system for Europe, is currently incapable of providing the level of security advertised by the Bush Administration and they also questioned justifications for the high level of tax payer expenditure on the program. Jeff Keuter testified in favor of GMD, saying that with additional investment and testing, the program would bolster US and European security.

Further reading

The European Missile Defense Folly
George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 64, No. 2, p. 32-39, 61, May/June 2008.

The Incredible Shrinking Missile Threat
Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy, May/June 2008.

Missile Defense Malfunction: Why the Proposed US Missile Defenses in Europe Will Note Work
Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson, Ethics and International Affairs, Volume 22.1, April 23, 2008.

Troubling Questions About Missile Defense
Theodore A. Postol, Boston Globe, April 15, 2008.

Missile defense spending FY 09-13-Chart
Victoria Samson, Center for Defense Information, April 14, 2008.

Lawmaker plans to attach strings to missile defense funds
Megan Scully, CongressDaily, April 10, 2008.

Assessment of progress Made on Block 2006 Missile Defense Capabilities and Oversight
Statement of Paul Francis, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, US Senate, US Government Accountability Office, April 1, 2008.

Ballistic Missile Defense Programs in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for FY2009 and the Future Years Defense Program
Hearing held on April 1, 2008. (Transcript available only with a subscription to Federal News Service.)

Reagan’s Strategic Vision for Missile Defense
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney, Heritage Lecture #1078, April 18, 2008.

Missile Defense: The Way Forward
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Heritage Lecture #1077, April 18, 2008.

On 25th Anniversary of “Star Wars,” Cheney’s Missile Defense Claims Don’t Add Up
Kingston Reif, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, April 3, 2008.

Twenty-five Years After Reagan’s Star Wars Speech
David Wright and Lisbeth Gronlund, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1, 2008.

Europe Edges Closer to Europe Anti-Missile Deal
Wade Boese, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

Bucharest Summit: US Missile Defence Bases Continue to Divide NATO
Nicola Butler and Martin Butcher, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 87, Spring 2008.

Star Wars Turns 25 Years Old, but Effective and Capable Missile Defense Still Elusive
Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard and John Isaacs, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, March 26, 2008.

Missile Defense and the Czech Republic
Philip E. Coyle, March/April 2008, pp. 6-8.

A Shot in the Dark
Weekly Wastebasket, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Volume XIII No. 13 – March 28, 2008.

Missile Defence Deal?

Martin Butcher, Bucharest Summit Blog, Acronym Institute, April 6, 2008.

Vulnerability of Research Reactors to Attack
Mohammad Saleem Zafar, Henry L. Stimson Center Research Fellow Final Report, April 2008.

Misguided Missile Defense
James Tierney and Stephen Flynn, Boston Globe, March 28, 2008.

Defense Space Activities: National Security Space Strategy Needed to Guide Future DOD Space Efforts
Government Accountability Office (GAO) GAO-08-431R, March 27, 2008.

Missile Defense in Poland: Not a Done Deal
Katarzyna Bzdak, FAS Strategic Security Blog, March 26, 2008.

After the ASAT Tests
Michael Krepon, Henry L. Stimson Center, March 24, 2008.

Other publications

Nuclear Spring
J. Peter Scoblic, The New Republic (via Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), April 23, 2008.

Russia set to shut down plutonium production reactor Sunday
US officials say, Charles Digges, Bellona, April 20, 2008.

Russians to Shut Reactor That Produces Bomb Fuel
C.J. Chivers, The New York Times, April 20, 2008.

The Post-Nonproliferation Age
Charles Krauthammer, Real Clear Politics, April 18, 2008.

The Realities of Nuclear Fuel Supply Guarantees
Pavel Podvig, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 18, 2008.

Soviet test site offers insights on nuclear monitoring
New, April 18, 2008.

Symposium on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Global Politics
Video of discussion with William Potter, Joseph Cirincione, and Rose Gottemoeller, moderated by Dan Rather, Hollybush at Rowan University, April 11, 2008.

Proliferation Analyst Discourages Focus on Intent
Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire via NTI, April 10, 2008.

British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club
Richard Weitz, World Politics Review, April 10, 2008.

The Crisis in Nonproliferation
American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.

Regional Nuclear Conflict Would Create Near-Global Ozone Hole, Says CU-Boulder Study
Science Daily, April 8, 2008.

Leadership Down Under
Deepti Choubey, Washington Post, April 5, 2008.

Elections and Enduring Realities: Australia’s Nuclear Debate
Jeffrey S. Lantis, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

Reprocessing Revisited: The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Edwin Lyman and Frank N. von Hippel, Arms Control Today, April 2008.

Is the NPT Being Overtaken by Events?
Rebecca Johnson, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 87, Spring 2008.

Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence
Martin Hellman, The BENT of Tau Beta Pi, Spring 2008.

Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, and Program Needs
Joint Working Group of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
No date.

Upcoming events

NPT PrepCom, Geneva, Switzerland, April 28 – May 9, 2008. See Reaching Critical Will for related information.

Event: Thinking Outside the Bomb – Action on Nuclear Weapons, the Environment, and Health
Project for Nuclear Awareness, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 10, 2008.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at 40: Addressing Current and Future Challenges
Arms Control Association Annual Meeting and Luncheon, Washington, DC, June 16, 2008.

Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone 2008
SOAS in London, June 16, 2008

Share This

Copy Link to Clipboard