Getting to Zero Update

In this issue:


Commitments to disarmament and arms control

Four British Statesmen call for a world without nuclear weapons

Former U.K. Foreign and Defence Secretaries endorsed the vision of a world without nuclear weapons in the Times (London) on June 30. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Douglas Hurd, Lord David Owen and Lord George Robertson (also a former NATO secretary-general) called for a dramatic reduction in nuclear stockpiles around the world through a multilateral effort, with the eventual goal of getting to zero. The statesmen said that the United States and Russia should extend the provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, that world leaders should reform the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and bring the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty into force. The Times also ran its own editorial the same day, calling for a nuclear summit in early 2009 between Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and the next US President. The fact that the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for taking a conservative perspective is particularly interesting.

An Early Day Motion (Parliamentary petition) has now been put down for signature, sponsored by recent Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, recent Conservative Party Leader Michael Howard, recent Defence Secretary John Reid, serving and former Chairs of the Commons Defence Committee James Arbuthnot and Michael Ancram and recent Liberal Democrat Leader and foreign affairs luminary Menzies Campbell.


Further reading

Britain’s new nuclear abolitionists
Rebecca Johnson, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 15, 2008.

Former rivals join forces in nuclear plea
Michael Evans, Times (London), June 30, 2008.

Thinking the Unthinkable: A World Without Nuclear Weapons
Carla Anne Robbins, New York Times, June 30, 2008.


Ambassador James Goodby gives advice to next US president on Getting to Zero

In an op-ed to the Washington Times on July 9, former Ambassador James Goodby (BASIC Board member) called upon the next US president to pledge to work toward a nuclear free world. He suggested that given the nature of terrorist threats, and the high number of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States and Russia, both leaders need to establish a new treaty lowering their current number. The eventual goal would be to get to zero strategically deployed warheads by the time the US and Russian leaders may leave office in eight years. He also argued that reducing the Russian and US nuclear weapons arsenals would show other countries that the major nuclear powers are serious about disarmament, and would therefore help to dissuade other countries from pursuing nuclear programs.


Senator Lugar calls for a new START

In commentary published in the Washington Times on July 18, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Richard Lugar (Republican-Indiana) praised the Russian passage of the continuation of the Nunn-Lugar Agreement and called for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The Senator highlighted the accomplishments of the Nunn-Lugar Agreement, including dismantling more than 2,000 former Soviet intercontinental missiles and the deactivation of more than 7,200 nuclear warheads. However, he stressed that President Bush and the next US president need to focus on extending and expanding START, which expires in 2009. The Senator also noted that the Moscow Treaty (Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT), signed in 2002, is inadequate as it lacks any formal verification mechanisms. It is essential, he continued, for the US -Russian strategic relationship to continue the START verification regime. Finally, the Senator concluded by pointing out that President Dmitry Medvedev and former President, now Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin favor extending START, and that President Bush should do the same.


US Senators Kerry and Kyl debate over Getting to Zero

\Senator John Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts), in an op-ed to the Financial Times on June 24, has called for the next US president to follow four key policy actions. First, within the first 100 days of the administration, the president should deliver a major policy address, calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. Second, the next president should establish a new position, a deputy national security advisor, whose responsibility would be to prevent nuclear terrorism. Third, the deputy national security advisor would take the lead in a major effort to secure the world’s nuclear material. Fourth, world leaders, from the United States and Russia in particular, should drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals and take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Senator Kerry also noted that a nuclear-free world will not be attained quickly. The president must work with Congress and the international community to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. Senator Jon Kyl (Republican-Arizona) responded stating that the next president should modernize the current nuclear arsenal, not reduce it. He cited that more than 31 countries are under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, and that as long as countries like Syria, North Korea, and Iran seek nuclear weapons, the United States must modernize to meet these threats. Senator Kyl concluded saying that Britain and France are also modernizing their forces and the United States cannot afford to fall behind.


40th Anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

July 1 marked the 40th Anniversary of the opening of the NPT for signature and to mark the occasion President Bush, and other leaders, commented on the historic treaty. President Bush stressed the United States’ continuing commitment and obligations to the NPT and called all Parties to work toward ensuring that the treaty stays intact. Absent from President Bush’s speech was any acknowledgement of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s proposal, introduced last month, on a new nuclear commission to view and fix some of the problems with the current treaty before the 2010 NPT Review Conference. During his speech marking the 40th Anniversary, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised the NPT’s success, but noted that the treaty’s work is far from over and called for more efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.


Further reading

ANALYSIS: More `near-nuclear’ states may loom
Charles J Hanley, AP, June 28, 2008.

Nuclear Waste? New Republic: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is More Vulnerable – and More Vital – Than Ever.
Peter Scoblic, The New Republic, July 1, 2008.

The Race between Cooperation and Catastrophe
The American Academy in Berlin, June 27, 2008.


A Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)-Free Zone

Led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, 43 nations from Africa, Europe and the Middle East pledged to form a Union for the Mediterranean, and the parties agreed to work toward a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. The Union overlaps in the EU into Africa and the Middle East, and hopes to work toward finding solutions to the challenges in the areas. In a statement released by Israel, Syria and the Palestinians along with countries across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa agreed to “pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction”.


Country reports

United States

United States removes tactical nuclear weapons from Britain; Questions persist in Germany

After 50-plus years of American nuclear weapons on British soil, the United States removed the last of its tactical nuclear weapons from Britain, according to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. The weapons were B-61 gravity bombs. Kristensen explained the reduction, saying “the northern front is not very relevant any more for these deployments. The US nuclear posture is almost entirely focused on the southern region, in Incirlik [in Turkey] and Aviano [in Italy].” He also noted the perplexing nature of NATO secrecy in removing the weapons. Mainly, the reductions occurred when Russian officials were scolding the United States for maintaining their tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Kristensen points out that US and NATO officials should have made the removal public and engaged Russia on paring down its own arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. The reductions leave between 150-240 US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The United Kingdom has its own strategic nuclear forces deployed on Trident submarines.

Meanwhile, members of the German Parliament from several major parties are asking why about 20 US tactical nuclear weapons are still in their country. Little support remains in the Parliament for maintaining the weapons on German soil as they are seen as Cold War relics, but officials from Germany’s Defense Ministry currently say the bombs should stay. Existing NATO doctrine includes these tactical free-fall bombs, but NATO’s Strategic Concept is slated for review next year, and this could change. Domestic resistance against these particular warheads appears to be growing, and several European countries are facing expensive investment decisions as the aircraft assigned to nuclear roles are reaching the end of their lives.


US-Russian 123 Agreement in trouble

The nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Russia is being threatened by congressional delays. Lawmakers are holding out for more guarantees that Russia will cease trading with Iran. The agreement comes upon the heels of other plans for nuclear trade with India, the UAE and other Middle Eastern states. The actual agreement would allow American firms to sell certain nuclear technologies to Russian companies, and would ease the sale of nuclear fuel from Russia to the United States. President Bush submitted the agreement to Congress on May 13, meaning it would pass into law if lawmakers do not move to block or amend the legislation in 90 consecutive working days.


Further reading

US General Wants to Retain Nuclear Test Option
Elaine Grossman, Global Security Newswire, July 22, 2008.

Huessy: Keep US Nukes
Peter Huessy, Washington Times, July 21, 2008.

US Plans to Shrink Nuclear Weapons Complex
William Matthews, Defense News, July 17, 2008.

With nuclear weapons, a lot can go wrong
Steve Andreasen, Star Tribune, June 26, 2008.


US Presidential Race: Obama wants a nuclear free world

Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), the presumptive Democratic nominee, was on the campaign trail in Indiana on July 16. Addressing an audience at Purdue University, Obama declared, “It’s time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.” The day before, Obama highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons in a major foreign policy speech on July 15 in Washington, DC, stating,

“We need to work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the US -Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.”

In his Indiana speech, Obama called for securing loose nuclear material from Russia and was joined by former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, father of the Nunn-Lugar agreement, which first started to secure the loose material after the Cold War.

Just a few days earlier, Barrack Obama stated he would support the US -India Nuclear Cooperation deal in its current form, if he becomes President. He argued that the United States needs to maintain a strong relationship with India in the 21st century, and that India is a very successful democracy in the region.


Candidates react to Iranian missile tests

Both US presidential candidates reacted to the firing of short and medium range ballistic missiles by Iran earlier in July. Candidate and Senator Barrack Obama (Democrat-Illinois) called Iran a “great threat” that must be contained through a new wave of effective diplomacy and sanctions. Republican John McCain stated that the missile test proved that the United States needs a national missile defense system in Europe. McCain also criticized Obama’s stance on meeting with foreign leaders, saying, “Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”


Further reading

A New Nuclear Threat
Louis Rene Beres, Thomas McInerney and Paul E. Vallely, The Washington Times. July 18, 2008.

Obama vs. McCain: Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement, on Nuclear Weapons
John Isaacs, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, July 14, 2008.



US-India deal gains life

The beleaguered US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, thought to be dead, was given a new lease of life during the first weekend in July. Indian Prime Minister Singh went ahead and pushed for the deal, at the risk of the collapse of his government. The agreement was being held up in the Parliament by the Communist Party, whose members felt the agreement placed too much power in the hands of the United States. However, the Prime Minister changed his strategy and courted the Samajwadi Party, to gain enough support to pass it through against Communist opposition. The withdrawal of support by left-wing parties forced a confidence vote on July 22. The government survived the vote, which means the process for solidifying the deal can move forward.

The agreement, passed and signed by US Congress and President Bush in 2006, allows the United States to trade nuclear technology and material to India in exchange for some of India’s nuclear facilities to be open for safeguards. The agreement is particularly controversial as it allows the United States to supply sensitive nuclear technologies to a state unconstrained by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and will undoubtedly put greater pressure on the regime as others will now see less benefit to remaining members.

The next step is for the IAEA to approve safeguards for Indian civilian facilities. The agreement would then go to the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group for approval, and finally, it would have to be reapproved by the US Congress. Assuming it passes the prior stages, approval by Congress before the end of the year is doubtful given the coming election season and an already full agenda. Although closely idenitified with President Bush, both principal Presidential candidates have expressed support for the Agreement.


Further reading

A Nonproliferation Disaster
Jayantha Dhanapala and Daryl Kimball, Proliferation Analysis, July 10, 2008.

Negotiating India’s Next Nuclear Explosion
Henry Sokolski, The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2008.

India’s PM Set to Push Ahead With Nuclear Deal
Anjana Pasricha, VOA News, July 7, 2008.



Bellicose rhetoric and aggressive military posturing overshadowed many of July’s diplomatic developments over the Iranian nuclear program. In an apparent response to Israeli air exercises over the Mediterranean and harsh rhetoric from US politicians, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, threatened that Iran would block access to the Strait of Hormuz if attacked by the United States or Israel. Around 40% of the world’s traded oil-and 90% of that which is extracted from the Persian Gulf-travels through the Strait. Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the US 5th Fleet, warned that the United States and the international community would not tolerate such an action.

In its July 7 issue, the New Yorker published an article by journalist Seymour Hersh entitled “Preparing the Battlefield”. The piece alleges that the Bush administration has authorized $400 million for covert operations in Iran aimed at destabilizing the country’s religious leadership. Hersh claims that these operations may include targeted killings of key leaders and intelligence-gathering missions involving the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). He also asserts that US Special Operations Forces have been using southern Iraq as a base for cross-border missions into Iran since last year. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, rejected Hersh’s findings, stating that “I can tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else.”

On July 9, Iran claimed to have tested 9 missiles. Included among these was what Iran claimed was an enhanced version of the Shahab-3 Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). If the missile truly has a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles) as Iranian officials claimed, then that would place much of the Middle East, including Israel, in the range of a possible ballistic missile strike. However, there was widespread skepticism over the authenticity of the Iranian claims, with weapons experts pointing to the Shehab-3 missile as appearing to be identical to the original version, and indications that the official Iranian photos of the tests may have been digitally altered to conceal the failed launch of one of the missiles. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the test-firings did not push the countries closer to the brink of war, but argued that they demonstrated the need for US ballistic missile defenses (BMD) in Europe.

Furthermore, there has been much debate over House Resolution 362 in the US Congress. The bill seeks to punish Iran for its continued enrichment of uranium and calls for the United States to prevent the entrance of refined petroleum products into Iran. The legislation would also set “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Enforcement of this clause would likely require a US naval blockade of the country, which could be seen as an act of war.


Bush administration shows signs of change in Iran strategy

Despite the aforementioned developments, in recent days the Bush administration has shown signs of receptivity toward a potential thaw in US -Iranian relations. There has been talk of opening an American interests section in Tehran from top State Department officials in the last few weeks. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke out in support of the idea and also said that direct flights between the two countries may be possible in the future. Iran maintains an interests section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, but the United States has not had a diplomatic presence in Tehran for nearly thirty years. US interests in Iran are currently handled by the Swiss Embassy.

Additionally, William Burns, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and America’s third-ranking diplomat, traveled to Geneva for July 19th’s P5+1-Iran discussions over Tehran’s nuclear program. Burns, Javier Solana (EU CFSP High Representative), and Russian and Chinese representatives met with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator. The Undersecretary acted as an observer and reemphasized the US demand for Iran to cease its enrichment of uranium, but did not participate in the negotiations themselves. The event marked the first meeting of senior US and Iranian officials in the context of nuclear negotiations since Iran’s 1979 revolution.

Despite the presence of Burns, there were no significant developments in the Geneva talks. Jalili showed no signs of agreeing to a freeze in the expansion let alone cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment and the parties did not come to an agreement. Iran now has two weeks to consider the offer. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the talks as “a step forward”, while US and U.K. leaders seemed markedly less enthusiastic. In a July 21 visit to the United Arab Emirates, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Tehran that Iran would face consequences if no “serious” response is received within two weeks. On the same day, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressed the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) in Tel Aviv. Brown reiterated the United Kingdom’s strong support of Israel and promised to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, noting that Britain would play a leading role in levying additional sanctions on Tehran if necessary. There was also talk of Turkey acting in a mediatory role in future negotiations.


Further reading

A return to sanity?
Tehran Times, July 21, 2008.

Analyze This: Why Washington’s new playbook on Iran is no laughing matter
Calev Ben-David, Jerusalem Post, July 21, 2008.

Iran’s Air Force to test new armaments in large-scale war games
RIA Novosti, July 20, 2008.

A reality check on Iran
David Isenberg, Asia Times, July 19, 2008.

Using Bombs to Stave Off War
Benny Morris. New York Times. July, 18, 2008.

Iran and US Signaling Chance of Deal
Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, July 17, 2008.

The war with Iran
Frank Gaffney, Washington Times, July 15, 2008.

Tehran leaves no room for doubt
Julian Borger, Guardian, July 9, 2008.

Expert: ‘US won’t allow Israel to attack Iran’
Jerusalem Post, July 8, 2008.

Audio interview with Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, July 7, 2008.

Talk to Iran
Cyrus Bina and Sam Gardiner, Washington Times, July 5, 2008.

Netherlands bans Iranian students from nuclear studies
AFP, July 4, 2008.

Iran looks East as Europe looks the other way
Luke Manzarpour, Press TV, July 2, 2008.

US businessmen accused of military sales to Iran
Brian Wagner, VOA News, June 26, 2008.


North korea

North Korea details nuclear program

On June 26, North Korean officials issued a declaration detailing their plutonium program to the five other states of the Six Party Talks. President Bush welcomed the declaration, and announced that he is lifting the provisions of the “Trading with the Enemy Act”, and would ask Congress for approval for the removal of North Korea from the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The next day, in a symbolic gesture, North Koreans destroyed the cooling tower at Yongbyon, indicating their willingness to move forward in the discussions. While discrepancies exist over how much plutonium North Korea declared and possessed, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed that the United States has the required tools to verify the North Korean declaration. US officials say that they are also still concerned about North Korea’s past possible involvement with a highly-enriched uranium program and long-term aspirations for nuclear weapons.

A new round of Six Party Talks concluded on July 13 with a basic outline on verifying North Korea’s nuclear disarmament. The agreement, announced by China, allows international inspectors along with the IAEA, back into North Korea to verify disarmament. Kyodo News Agency in Japan reported on July 17 that North Korea has removed half of the 8,000 nuclear fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor. Kyodo cited unnamed officials who have been involved with the Six Party Talks.


US Secretary of State to meet with North Korean Foreign Minister

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet with North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun in Singapore on July 23 to discuss ending the North Korean program. The two will meet with the other countries of the Six Party Talks to try and work toward a verification agreement with North Korea. The informal meeting will be at the highest level for the two countries since Secretary of State Colin Powell met with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun in 2004.


Further reading

DPRK verification ventures
Andreas Persbo, Verification, Implementation and Compliance Blog, July 14, 2008.

The Tragic End Of Bush’s North Korea Policy
John Bolton, Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2008.

Diplomacy Is Working on North Korea
Condoleezza Rice, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2008.



IAEA inspectors visit Syria

IAEA inspectors visited Syria at the end of June to investigate the alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel last September at al-Kibar. The inspections got off to a “good start,” with no real complaints by IAEA officials at the test site. According to a senior U.N. official, the results of the inspections were inconclusive. Syria has been accused of building a nuclear reactor at the site allegedly for a secret weapons program. According to the Guardian, Israeli intelligence officials claim to believe that Syria was going to sell the weapons grade fuel to Iran, though it is still unclear where the uranium fuel would have come from for the reactor. More importantly, the strike and investigation of the strike raise questions about the international nonproliferation regime, including whether the current regime is credible enough to deter states from seeking nuclear weapons, and whether the Israeli strike, and silence, serve as a nod of acceptance by the international community for preventive military action in similar situations that would be deemed by most international lawyers as clearly illegal.


Further reading

Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike Program: A Trigger for Nuclear Conflict?
Vince Manzo, Center for Defense Information, July 16, 2008.


Missile defense

On July 8 in Prague, the Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement for the basing of a radar station in the Czech Republic as part of a proposed US ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD) in Europe. The Czech Parliament still needs to approve the agreement, and the agreement would then be subject to US congressional approval. A majority of the Czech Parliament and public have so far opposed the deal.

During the G8 Summit in Japan, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said in reference to the missile defense agreement moving forward, “We will not be hysterical about this, but we will think of retaliatory steps.” In the days following, the flow of crude oil in a pipeline that runs from Russia to the Czech Republic slowed and Czech officials were suspecting that it was a form of retribution for the deal. Russian officials were denying any link, and company executives said that oil has been re-routed to Turkey for commercial reasons. The Czech Republic has access to other oil pipelines.

Polish and US officials met on July 21 to discuss Poland’s possible participation in the GMD project in Europe, but details were not forthcoming. As of July 18, the Polish government was waiting for a verdict from the Bush Administration on whether it will provide Poland with a “Patriot-type” air defense system as part of a package deal in exchange for Poland agreeing to host 10 missile interceptors. The two governments have been in negotiations since May 2007. Poland has been requesting military aid, partly to cover for what it sees as the additional risk it will inherit if the country becomes the host for part of the US missile defense system. The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita was reporting on July 15 that local governments may file complaints against the construction of a missile defense base in Poland, which could add to other delays for the site.

At a Defense Department press conference on July 15, the head of the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering, confirmed that the test of a GMD system on July 18 would not entail the full test that had originally been planned and would forego attempting an intercept. The full test was cancelled because of faulty telemetry cards that are supposed to gather data during these trials. The test that MDA did conduct on July 18 covered only the sensors and integration of radar for tracking a would-be enemy missile. The next GMD interceptor test is now scheduled for December.

During the press conference on July 15, Lt. Gen. Obering pointed to the recent Iranian missile tests as justification for US efforts behind national missile defense in general and the European GMD site in particular. Critics and Russian officials, meanwhile noted that the Iranian missile tests failed to show any new capabilities. The overstatement of Iranian capabilities to justify the hastening of GMD deployment has similarities to the strategies used by US officials in exaggerating Soviet capabilities in the Cold War to justify levels of US defense spending. Several weeks earlier, when Lt. Gen. Obering was on Capitol Hill, he mentioned that MDA would like to have a missile defense test bed located in Europe.


Further reading

Two Aegis Ships to Defend NATO?
Andy Grotto, Arms Control Wonk, July 21, 2008.

News Analysis: Missile Defense Role Questioned
Wade Boese, Arms Control Today, July/August 2008.

Rethink European Missile Defense
Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Today, July/August 2008.

4 Aegis Ships to Defend NATO
Jeffrey Lewis, Arms Control Wonk, July 16, 2008.

DoD News Briefing with Lt. Gen. Obering from the Pentagon
US Defense Department transcript, July 15, 2008.

Controlled Unclassified Info May Be Classified, US -Czech Doc Says
Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists, Secrecy News Blog, July 14, 2008.

Agreement Between the Czech Republic and the United States of America on Establishing a United States Ballistic Missile Defense Radar Site in the Czech Republic
Available via the website of the Federation of American Scientists, July 8, 2008.

Spiraling Out of Control: How Missile Defense Acquisition Strategy is Setting a Dangerous Precedent
Victoria Samson and Nick Schwellenbach, Defense & Security Analysis, June 1, 2008 – (Available for public access July 9, 2008), Vol. 24, Issue 2.

Last-Minute Missiles
Washington Post editorial, July 1, 2008.


Other publications

Engaging Russia
Matt Martin, Courier, Summer 2008.

Minimum deterrence
Jeffrey Lewis, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2008.

New Presidents, New Agreements? Advancing US -Russian Strategic Arms Control
Alexei Arbatov and Rose Gottemoeller, Arms Control Today, July/August 2008.

Norwegian Government: Emerging opportunities for nuclear disarmament
M2 Presswire, July 17, 2008.

Nuclear Breakout
James Kitfield, National Journal, July 12, 2008.

The end of Japan’s nuclear taboo
Elizabeth D. Bakanic, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 9, 2008.

A Chance at Zero
Q&A with Bruce Blair for Washington ProFile, July 8, 2008.

The Hard Cases: Eliminating Civilian HEU in Ukraine and Belarus
William C. Potter and Robert Nurick, The Nonproliferation Review, July 2008.

Revving up the Cooperative Nonproliferation Engine
Senator Richard Lugar, The Nonproliferation Review, July 2008.


BASIC and Getting to Zero (GTZ)

Taking Responsibility what can NPT states realistically do to build on today’s momentum behind nuclear disarmament?
Paul Ingram, Executive Director, BASIC, Getting to Zero Paper, No 2, 15 July 2008.

Sarkozy and the French nuclear deterrence
Jean-Marie Collin, Getting to Zero Paper, No 2, 15 July 2008..

Analysis of the French White Paper on Defence and Security
Stephen Herzog, BASIC, Getting to Zero Paper, No 3, 15 July 2008.

Iran ‘s Missile Program, Bharath Gopalaswamy, Cornell University, Getting to Zero Paper, No 4, 15 July 2008.

Nuclear Weapons and Transatlantic Security: Meeting with a delegation from the Defence Committee of the WEU Assembly – The European Security and Defence Assembly
June 17, 2008, Washington-based experts discuss Getting to Zero, US nuclear policy and the presidential race, Iran’s nuclear program, and transatlantic security, posted July 15, 2008.

Another milestone to Zero: UK Statesmen call for a World without Nuclear Weapons
Special Getting to Zero Update, June 30, 2008.

Paul Ingram, BASIC’s Executive Director, participated in a small big-picture day-seminar with Foreign Secretary David Miliband at his country residence discussing issues related to disarmament on July 18. BASIC also co-sponsored two roundtables discussing issues related to Britain’s strategic posture on July 7 and 11. The first, at the Royal United Services Institute and involving officials, analysts and advisers, discussed Britain’s national security strategy and appropriate responses to global threats, whilst the second, at the National Liberal Club (in conjunction with WMD Awareness) looked at strategic defence procurement issues.

Share This

Copy Link to Clipboard