131 Items

People watch a TV screen showing file footage of a North Korean missile launch, at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea on Aug. 29. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon

Analysis & Opinions - The Atlantic

The North Korean Threat Beyond ICBMs

| Aug. 28, 2017

From the moment that President Barack Obama told President-elect Donald Trump during the transition about the impending threat of North Korean nuclear-tipped ICBMs, Trump’s basic stance has been: not on my watch. From his tweet of January 2 (“won’t happen!”) to his August statements that the U.S. military is “locked and loaded” to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea if it threatens America, Trump has sought to draw a red line that makes it clear he will do whatever is necessary to halt North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs—before they can target the continental United States.

teaser image

- US-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

The U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism Newsletter: December 2016 - March 2017

Graham Allison’s new book urges U.S, China and Russia to cooperate in preventing nuclear terrorism.

Olli Heinonen and William Tobey weigh in on IAEA’s nuclear security conference.

Siegfried S. Hecker calls for rekindling of U.S.-Russian nuclear security cooperation.

Matthew Bunn co-edits a volume on insider threats.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Russian businessmen in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Monday, Dec. 19, 2016.

(AP)

Analysis & Opinions - The National Interest

A Blueprint for Donald Trump to Fix Relations with Russia

| December 18, 2016

In a "policy memo" to President-elect Donald Trump, Graham Allison and Dimitri K. Simes write: "The two Chinese characters that make up the word “crisis” can be interpreted as meaning both “danger” and “opportunity.” Russia today offers your administration not only a serious challenge but a significant opportunity.

Russia is no longer the Evil Empire the United States confronted over decades of Cold War. Nonetheless, Russia remains a player whose choices affect vital U.S. interests profoundly across the agenda of global issues. First and foremost, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in thirty minutes.

- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center Newsletter

From the Director

| Summer 2016

What is the most serious danger facing the world today?

Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Dick Cheney all give the same answer: nuclear terrorism. If terrorists succeed in exploding a nuclear weapon in New York, Boston, or London, the other issues we care about will not matter much.

In 2009, President Obama proposed an ambitious agenda to address this danger. Among the steps he called for was a Global Summit on Nuclear Security. Seven years and four summits later, including the final one this spring in Washington, we can take stock of progress—and the Belfer Center’s role in helping conceive and sustain it. Policy impact is rarely a simple case of cause and effect.

Could There Be a Terrorist Fukushima?

commons.wikimedia.org

Analysis & Opinions - The New York Times

Could There Be a Terrorist Fukushima?

| April 4, 2016

The attacks in Brussels last month were a stark reminder of the terrorists’ resolve, and of our continued vulnerabilities, including in an area of paramount concern: nuclear security.

The attackers struck an airport and the subway, but some Belgian investigators believe they seemed to have fallen back on those targets because they felt the authorities closing in on them, and that their original plan may have been to strike a nuclear plant. A few months ago, during a raid in the apartment of a suspect linked to the November attacks in Paris, investigators found surveillance footage of a senior Belgian nuclear official. Belgian police are said to have connected two of the Brussels terrorists to that footage.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. General Gadi Eizenkot is seen attending a commity in the Israeli parliament the Knesset (File photo, Nov. 2015)

(SIPA via AP)

Analysis & Opinions - The Atlantic

Is Iran Still Israel’s Top Threat?

| March 8, 2016

Six months after the United States Senate failed to block the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Islamic Republic has taken major steps to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is monitoring the country’s compliance, declared that Iran has fulfilled its initial nuclear commitments, and most international sanctions on Iran have been lifted.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives to greet U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter at the prime minister's office in Jerusalem, Israel, Tuesday, July 21, 2015.

(AP Photo)

Analysis & Opinions - The Boston Globe

Iran Deal Keeps Our Military Options Open

| August 5, 2015

In the debate about whether the Iranian nuclear agreement provides Iran a “path to a bomb” or instead provides us a “window to a target,” Americans should listen carefully to the Israeli who knows best.

In his campaign to persuade Congress to reject this deal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has focused like a laser beam on the claim that this agreement “paves Iran’s path to a bomb” because its key constraints expire in a decade. In contrast, one of Israel’s most respected national security barons, Amos Yadlin, formerly chief of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate under Netanyahu, has pointed out that when the agreement expires, an American or Israeli military attack will not be more difficult, and indeed could be easier than it is today.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (right) and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif meet in Paris to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal.

United States Department of State

Analysis & Opinions - The National Interest

Assessing an Iran Deal: 5 Big Lessons from History

| July 7, 2015

As the policy community prepares to assess an agreement between the U.S. and its P5+1 partners and Iran, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker asked me to review the history of analogous agreements for lessons that illuminate the current challenge. In response to his assignment, I reviewed the seven decades of the nuclear era, during which the U.S. negotiated arms-control treaties, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968; strategic arms limitation talks and agreements from SALT to New Start; the North Korean accord of 1994; the agreements that helped eliminate nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus in the early 1990s; and the pact that eliminated the Libyan nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Among many lessons and clues from this instructive history, five stand out