Edition

Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Russia's Nuclear Forces

IN THIS ISSUE: CPGS and Russia's nuclear forces, Russia to up nuclear weapons spending 50% by 2016, Egypt to launch first nuclear power plant in Dabaa, Iran nuclear talks: Congress is the elephant at the negotiating table, Prithvi-II test-fired again, Pakistan to focus on short-range missiles.

Published on October 8, 2013

Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Russia's Nuclear Forces

James Acton | Independent Military Review

There is still a window of opportunity for cooperation between the United States and Russia on conventional prompt global strike weapons.

Russia to Up Nuclear Weapons Spending 50% by 2016

RIA Novosti
Russia is to increase annual spending on nuclear weapons by more than 50 percent in the next three years, a parliamentary defense committee said Tuesday.
 

Egypt to Launch First Nuclear Power Plant in Dabaa: President 

Ahram Online
Egypt is taking steps towards launching its first power-generating nuclear plant in Dabaa, located on the Mediterranean Coast, announced interim-President Adly Mansour in a televised statement.
 

Iran Nuclear Talks: Congress is the Elephant at the Negotiating Table

Paul Richter | Los Angeles Times 
A vote to continue or strengthen sanctions "is pretty cost-free for Congress," said George Perkovich, a nuclear specialist at the nonpartisan Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
 

Prithvi-II Test-Fired Again

Hindu
For the second time in two days, the nuclear weapons capable surface-to-surface missile, Prithvi-II was successfully test-fired by Strategic Forces Command (SFC) personnel from Chandipur, Odisha on Tuesday.
 

Pakistan to Focus on Short-Range Missiles

Kelsey Davenport | Arms Control Today
Toby Dalton, now the deputy director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that India’s nuclear developments are “primarily driven” by China’s growing nuclear arsenal and Beijing’s presumably growing conventional forces.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.