Authors Malcolm Chalmers, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford and William Walker, Professor of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, explore the consequences of constitutional changes in the United Kingdom for its nuclear weapon policies in their new book.
The number one problem in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein but his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Without them he is dangerous and despicable but not a threat remotely worthy of American intervention. This truth has a huge bearing on policy that has been largely ignored.
New reports show that the still-classified nuclear posture review (NPR) marks a major change in US nuclear policy and an expansion of the role of nuclear weapons. The report calls for new uses and missions for nuclear weapons, the production of new missiles, bombers and submarines, the design of new types of nuclear weapons and major new investments in weapons production facilities.
On Monday, March 4, Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Representative John McHugh (R-N.Y.) introduced a bipartisan bill to the House that would allow Russia to reduce its debt in exchange for securing its nuclear materials. This timely bill follows attempts by terrorist groups to obtain nuclear material and a recent intelligence report to Congress stressing the vulnerability of Russian fissile material to theft or diversion.
What did the UN inspections in Iraq accomplish? For background, the Non-Proliferation Project provides some history and analysis from Tracking Nuclear Proliferation, 1998 with an update from our forthcoming new edition due out in June 2002. Most officials and experts agree that the inspections destroyed far more of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities than did the military campaign itself.
A major reason why the United States was so unprepared for the terrorist attacks of September 11 is that national threat assessments produced over the past few years have consistently pointed policy-makers in the wrong direction. Partisan political agendas distorted these assessments, and fundamentally misled and misdirected national security resources.
If you thought the debate over missile defenses was over, think again. Congressional debate this week shows there is still no consensus in Washington on this troubled program. We provide excerpts from the House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The Administrations is using high-flying rhetoric to describe its nuclear posture, but some Senators say the policy is running on empty. Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith claimed that with the president's announced reductions in the nuclear warheads in the operational strategic force, "we are closing the books on the Cold War balance of terror." Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said it was more like warehousing the terror and compared it to the Enron's Corp.'s efforts to "make its debts disappear by moving them from one set of books to another."