• Proliferation Analysis

10 Plus 10 Doesn’t Add Up

• Jon Wolfsthal
• July 06, 2005

This week, the heads of the world’s leading market economies – the Group of 8 -- convene in Scotland for their annual summit. Important issues including debt relief and global warming will dominate the agenda.

• Event

Nonproliferation Issues at the Gleneagles Summit

• Michèle Flournoy, Rose Gottemoeller, Laura Holgate
• July 06, 2005
• Washington, D.C.
• Rose Gottemoeller's comments

A discussion of the nonproliferation issues that are to be discussed at the upcoming Gleneagles Summit.

• Testimony

Testimony: Nonproliferation and the G-8

• Jon Wolfsthal
• July 04, 2005
• June 30

If the leading economic powers cannot demonstrate the urgency of the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation, then we have little hope of preventing those who seek to use nuclear capabilities against us from succeeding. We have to remember that there are no good responses once a nuclear weapon or enough material to produce one goes missing.

• Proliferation Analysis

Collective Wisdom

• Joshua Williams
• June 28, 2005

On June 27, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, an extension of the 9/11 Commission, heard urgent testimony from three of America’s top proliferation experts. Convening in Washington, D.C., former Senator Sam Nunn, Harvard University’s Ashton Carter, and Monterrey Institute Deputy Director Leonard Spector made independent but complementary recommendations on how to better protect the United States from the threats of a nuclear terrorist attack and the global spread of nuclear weapons.

Responding to the testimony, Carnegie Endowment Director for Non-Proliferation Joseph Cirincione said, "If we would implement these recommendations over the next four years, America would be far safer than we have been in the four years since 9/11." The proposals made by these experts parallel many of the policies detailed in the recent Carnegie study, Universal Compliance. A summary of their recommendations follows. (Read More)

• Testimony

Pathways to the Bomb: Security of Fissile Materials Abroad

• Rose Gottemoeller
• June 28, 2005

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a program of great promise, but just over a year after its launch, it needs attention and firm hands if it is to fulfill that promise.

• Op-Ed

Europe’s Urgent Need for Imagination

• Anatol Lieven
• June 28, 2005
• The Financial Times

• Op-Ed

The World According to Bolton

• David Bosco
• June 27, 2005
• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

• Proliferation Analysis

Talk Now, Talk Fast on North Korea

• Jon Wolfsthal
• June 22, 2005

There are signs that the Six Party talks between the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia on North Korea’s nuclear program could soon resume. But holding talks while North Korea continues to expand its nuclear capabilities is like negotiating with a gun to your head.

• Proliferation Analysis

The Media and the Downing Street Memos

• Joseph Cirincione
• June 21, 2005

Press inquiries into the Downing Street memos are increasing after most media ignored the story for weeks.  The documents show that British officials at the highest levels believed that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq almost a year before he told the American public of his decision and that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”  If true, this explains why intelligence assessments in 2002 shifted dramatically in certainty and specificity from all previous assessments.  A refreshingly candid look at the issue and the media coverage comes from Michael Smith, a reporter for the Sunday Times of London, who has led the coverage, starting with his report of the Downing Street Memo on May 1.  We provide excerpts from his on-line chat for The Washington Post from Thursday, June 16. (Read More)

• Op-Ed

Whether This War Was Worth It

• Robert Kagan
• June 19, 2005
• Washington Post

There is nothing remarkable about polls showing Americans wondering whether the recent Iraq war was "worth it." There's always a question. But demanding unmixed results and guarantees against the unintended consequences of war is as unrealistic as demanding absolute confidence in the "necessity" of going to war in the first place.