Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
Since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there have been Americans who have wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Over the decades they have pushed for an emphasis on cooperation over conflict in U.S. foreign policy, a ban on atomic testing, and limits on atomic arsenals, and of course their ultimate goal: complete disarmament.
Nuclear energy cannot make a real difference to global climate change. To do so would require a tripling of capacity — building 25 reactors per year to 2050 — a rate of expansion that can't be met by the current infrastructure. As it is, nuclear energy, hampered by a moribund supply chain, will have to grow rapidly to maintain its current market share as demand for electricity doubles by 2030.
The February IAEA safeguards report on Iran indicates that the answers provided by Iran on all but two issues are "consistent" or "not inconsistent" with its information and on schedule with the agreed-upon work plan. However, the final outstanding issues are those most closely associated with weaponization.
When the U.S. launched a missile to destroy a dead satellite that would have otherwise re-entered the atmosphere and possibly threatened populated areas with a toxic load of hydrazine fuel, it resurrected fears about the so-called weaponization of space. Carnegie Associate Ashley J. Tellis comments in the Wall Street Journal on the ongoing “space weapon” debate and praises the Bush administration for rejecting a joint Russian-Chinese arms treaty aimed at banning such weapons.
What a difference a year can make! Last year, President Putin's speech at the Wehrkunde Security Conference in Munich sent shock waves through the international system. His uncompromising declaration that Russia was back on the world stage and a force to be reckoned with generated an immediate debate in Washington. With Secretary of Defense Robert Gates due to speak the next day, the foreign policy establishment stayed up late arguing how to respond: to slam Putin back, or use a lighter touch. Evidently it was Gates himself who insisted on humor: "One Cold War was quite enough," he said in his famous response—and that has been the U.S. official line toward Russia ever since, through a year of extremely harsh rhetoric from Moscow.
Babak Yektafar from Washington Prism interviews Karim Sadjadpour on U.S.-Iran Relations. Ultimately, Sadjadpour believes, the days when the US government was just simply hoping the Iranian regime would crumble are basically gone and I think the next US administration will likely approach Iran differently.
In the autumn 2007 issue of Survival, Ashley J. Tellis argues that China’s recent anti-satellite weapons test was part of a considered strategy designed to counter the overall military capability of the United States, and that "the United States has no choice but to run an offense–defense arms race, and win."
America’s relationship with the world is in disrepair. Anger, resentment, and fear have replaced the respect the United States once enjoyed. The next U.S. president should improve relations with Syria, and the mullahs in Tehran may be willing to shelve their nuclear plans permanently in exchange for a little face time with the United States.
After President Vladimir Putin said last month that Russia would not allow other countries "to poke their snotty noses into our affairs," we should face the fact that security relations with the West are in a shambles. Putin, who is fond of tough-guy slang, used the colorful phrase when he accused the United States of pushing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to decide against sending observers to the State Duma elections on Dec. 2.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices