Edition

The Brittle Nuclear Order

IN THIS ISSUE: The Brittle Nuclear Order, A More Geopoliticized Nuclear Suppliers Group, Rocket Men: The Team Building North Korea’s Nuclear Missile, McMaster on a Nuclear North Korea: 'We Can't Tolerate That Risk', Congress Advances Bill Imperiling Iran Nuclear Deal, Japan Approves Missile Defense Sytem Amid NKorea Threat

Published on December 19, 2017

The Brittle Nuclear Order

George Perkovich

There is something  that we call a “nuclear order.” It has evolved since 1945 to shape and regulate how sensitive nuclear materials and technologies are managed, and how states and their leaders are expected to behave. Experts from different countries or political perspectives will inevitably and reasonably (?) argue about particular elements of this order and the relationships and dependencies among them. Which principles and obligations are more or less important than others? What factors best explain how the order has evolved?

A More Geopoliticized Nuclear Suppliers Group

Mark Hibbs

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for twenty years—until the 1990s—successfully avoided geostrategic confrontation in administering multilateral nuclear export controls. Since then, largely prompted by the NSG’s considerations about its relationship with India, the strategic rivalries of important suppliers—the United States and its allies, Russia, and China—have played out in the group’s deliberations. Several developments have favored this trend: the rise of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; loss of influence on the United States and emergence of post-Cold War multipolarity; suppliers’ greater expectations for nuclear commerce; and reduced commitment of suppliers to multilateral diplomacy. 

Rocket Men: The Team Building North Korea’s Nuclear Missile

Choe Sang-Hun, Motoko Rich, Natalie Reneau, and Audrey Carlsen | New York Times

When the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un celebrated the launch of a powerful new missile last month, he was surrounded by a group of top scientists and officials. State media did not identify them, but they have all been seen with Mr. Kim before.These men – known by nicknames such as the “nuclear duo” and the “missile quartet” – have built an intercontinental ballistic missile that appears capable of hitting any city in the United States, an extraordinary scientific achievement for the world’s most isolated country.

McMaster on a Nuclear North Korea: 'We Can't Tolerate That Risk'

Daniella Diaz and Dan Merica | CNN

White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster said in an interview Tuesday that the United States doesn't want to risk coexisting with a nuclear North Korea. "We can't tolerate that risk," he told CBS in an interview Tuesday morning. "If North Korea has a nuclear weapon, who are you going to try to prevent getting one? Look at the regime, the hostility of this regime to the whole world."

Congress Advances Bill Imperiling Iran Nuclear Deal 

Bryant Harris | Al Monitor

The House passed a bill today that could inhibit the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, potentially running afoul of the landmark 2015 nuclear accord. A total of 23 Democrats joined their Republican counterparts to pass the bill from Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, 252-167. But the bill’s future is unclear in the Senate, where final passage would be contingent on the support of Democrats who have resisted Republican efforts to alter or withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Japan Approves Missile Defense Sytem Amid NKorea Threat 

Mari Yamaguchi | Associated Press

Japan’s Cabinet on Tuesday approved a plan to purchase a set of costly land-based U.S. missile combat systems to increase the country’s defense capabilities amid escalating threats from North Korea. The approval will allow the Defense Ministry to buy two Aegis Ashore systems to add to Japan’s current two-step missile defense consisting of Patriot batteries and Aegis-equipped destroyers. 

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.