Both Candidates Need to Address Nuclear Issues

Candidates should take nuclear issues seriously - “[Last week’s] nationally televised [Commander-in-Chief Forum] yielded little serious debate about the many great security challenges facing the United States today, including perhaps the single most urgent threat on the planet: nuclear weapons,” writes Katrina vanden Heuvel for The Washington Post. “Though Hillary Clinton was asked about the Iran nuclear deal, there was no discussion of nonproliferation or the perils of nuclear weapons in general… [Meanwhile,] Trump has stated on multiple occasions that ‘you want to be unpredictable’ with nuclear weapons. If the Islamic State strikes in the United States, he has suggested we should ‘fight back with a nuke.”

--“Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione has said of Trump, ‘He talks about nuclear weapons very loosely, casually — as if they’re just another tool in the toolbox’... While there is no doubt that Trump is unfit, Clinton should put forward a serious nuclear weapons policy that doesn’t fit in a tweet. To start, she can reaffirm her support for Obama’s vision during her time as secretary of state, when she argued, ‘We can’t afford to continue relying on recycled Cold War thinking.’ Clinton should make it clear that nonproliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons are not a utopian dream, but a security imperative, and that she meant it when she said, ‘We are sincere in our pursuit of a secure peaceful world without nuclear weapons.’” Full story here. http://wapo.st/2cXLlpq

ICBMs are nuclear dinosaurs - “As part of the Pentagon’s planned trillion-dollar nuclear spending spree, America’s inventory of Minuteman III land-based nuclear missiles are set to be replaced by a shiny new fleet of ICBMs dubbed the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent… But even before the new missiles enter production, cost estimates are soaring. Bloomberg recently reported that the planned overhaul of America’s ICBMs is now projected to cost at least $85 billion. That’s 36-percent more expensive than the Air Force’s original estimate of $62 billion,” write Geoff Wilson and Noah Williams for War is Boring.

--“In the face of an uncertain and ballooning program cost, the real question we should be asking is — why aren’t we just retiring the ICBM part of the arsenal? ICBMs are an anachronism, a thermonuclear dinosaur, and have been for a long time. The strategy for their use is a relic of the Cold War, they do nothing to counter the real threats we face today and they can easily stand to be eliminated from the U.S. nuclear arsenal.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2cgSQEZ

Leveraging the Iran Deal - “The year-old nuclear agreement with Iran shows that it is possible to advance our national security through diplomacy while making clear to Iran’s leaders that we will maintain our defenses and support our allies in the region,” write Jim Walsh and Frank Wisner for The Pittsburgh Gazette-Post. “The agreement shows that sanctions are a means not an end, and that Washington can shrewdly deploy sanctions relief to achieve its objectives. The agreement shows that Iran can change its behavior if it sees that doing so is in its interests.”

--“The good news is that Iran has complied strictly with its commitments. The bad news: Iranian leaders are increasingly suspicious of the U.S. and believe it has slow-walked sanctions relief. Still, momentum can be restored if the two countries address issues of mutual concern... Diplomacy proved its value in removing the Iranian nuclear threat. Our next administration would be wise to explore a similar path to deal with the other crises in the Middle East.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2creohM

Powell defends Iran Deal - “According to hacked emails reviewed by LobeLog, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell... rejected assessments that Iran, at the time, was ‘a year away’ from a nuclear weapon,” writes Eli Clifton for Lobelog. “Powell acknowledged Iran’s right to enrich uranium for nuclear power, said that sanctions alone wouldn’t be enough to ‘break’ Iran, and pointed out that the assessment that Iran could make a dash for the bomb and construct a nuclear weapon within a year was exaggerated… Powell ultimately supported the nuclear agreement reached by the Obama administration, telling Meet The Press that ‘It’s a pretty good deal,’ on September 6, 2015.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2cJjgBn

Tweet - <a data-cke-saved-href="http://bit.ly/2cQzgNZ” target=" href="http://bit.ly/2cQzgNZ” target=" _blank"="">@MrDanZak: Nukes on the Brain? I picked 10 Great Works of Art on Nuclear Weapons http://bit.ly/2cAAnAm

Don’t underestimate North Korea’s nukes - “North Korea will have enough material for about 20 nuclear bombs by the end of this year, with ramped-up uranium enrichment facilities and an existing stockpile of plutonium according to new assessments by weapons experts. The North has evaded a decade of U.N. sanctions to develop the uranium enrichment process, enabling it to run an effectively self-sufficient nuclear program that is capable of producing around six nuclear bombs a year, they said,” writes Jack Kim and James Pearson for Reuters.

--“Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies said North Korea had an unconstrained source of fissile material, both plutonium from the Yongbyon reactor and highly-enriched uranium from at least one and probably two sites… Despite sanctions, by now North Korea is probably largely self-sufficient in operating its nuclear program, although it may still struggle to produce some material and items, Lewis said. ‘While we saw this work in Iran, over time countries can adjust to sanctions.’” Full story here. http://reut.rs/2cHEmNV

Tweet - @ArmsControlNow: Top diplomats from US, Japan, South Korea to discuss North Korea test (@Reuters) http://reut.rs/2cALGsl

Nuclear Woes of the Subcontinent - “India and Pakistan continuously increase their stockpiles of fissile material. Pakistan possesses battlefield nuclear weapons that it threatens to deploy against India. New Delhi is close to completing deployment of a nuclear triad. Non-state actors in South Asia pose a perpetual threat of gaining access to nuclear weapons or materials. Artillery fire along the India-Pakistan border is frequent. For all these reasons, the nuclear situation in South Asia demands attention,” writes Jayita Sarkar for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

--“Can anything be done to reduce nuclear risk in the region? Yes—initiatives of three kinds stand out for their potential to enhance South Asian nuclear stability. First, New Delhi and Islamabad could undertake bilateral cooperation in nuclear security. Second, the two sides could—with international help—seek to improve the region's nuclear cybersecurity. And India and Pakistan could commit, in one fashion or another, to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/2cXKYuE

Quick Hits:

--“Podcast: Why nuclear war looks inevitable,” by Jason Fields for Reuters. http://reut.rs/2cX7W5q

--“What being strong toward North Korea should mean,” by Ottar Andreasen and Steve Andreasen for the Chicago Tribune. http://trib.in/2cxsoYr

--“2016 Open Ended Working Group: Towards 2017 Nuclear Weapon Ban Negotiations?” by Jenny Nielsen for Arms Control Wonk. http://bit.ly/2ccvHVM

--“The night we almost lost Arkansas — a 1980 nuclear Armageddon that almost was,” by Andrew O'Hehir for Salon. http://bit.ly/2c9u5qV

Events:

--“Deadly Arsenals: the Policy and Politics of Nuclear Weapons,” with Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund. September 15 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Guest Lecturer Series Session at OSHER at Johns Hopkins University, Montgomery County Campus, 9601 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD.

--“The Future of Arms Control and Strategic Stability,” with 10 speakers. September 15 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Carnegie Endowment, 1179 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC. RSVP online. http://ceip.org/2c7ZiNV

--“Report Launch of Sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea,” with Adm. Mike Mullen, MGM Consulting; Senator Sam Nunn, Nuclear Threat Initiative; and Adam Mount, Center for American Progress. September 16 at 8:30 a.m. at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington. Webcast on CFR website. http://on.cfr.org/2ciUOHD

--“Author talk with Dan Zak,” author of Almighty: Courage, Resistance, and Existential Peril in the Nuclear Age. September 20 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Potter's House,1658 Columbia Road NW, Washington. http://bit.ly/2cl3o3i

--“Strategic Conversation on U.S. Foreign and National Security Policy” featuring Rep. Adam Smith (WA). September 22 from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m., at the Stimson Center, 1211 Connecticut Ave. NW, Eighth Floor, Washington. RSVP Online. http://bit.ly/2aOyh0z

--Screening of Command and Control from September 23 to 29 at Landmark Theatres E Street Cinema, 555 11th St. NW, Washington. http://bit.ly/2aXwKFZ

Dessert:

Mushroom clouds on the moon - “To this day, it's unclear who first had the idea to nuke the moon. As with a lot of ideas hatched at the height of the Cold War, it seems like a fever dream from the 50s, an era when humanity was simultaneously on the brink of destruction and the discovery of the next frontier of human existence: outer space. No one now thinks nuking the moon is a good idea, and US officials kiboshed the notion relatively quickly. But you can easily imagine some Pentagon suits looking up at the moon, looking at America's newly acquired nuclear arsenal, looking back up at the moon, and thinking, What if we... ?” writes Harry Cheadle for Vice.

--“The details of the program, dubbed Project A119, were first made public in 2000 by Leonard Reiffel, the physicist in charge of looking into the possibility of detonating a nuke on the moon's surface or just above it… ‘It was clear the main aim of the proposed detonation was a PR exercise and a show of one-upmanship,’ Reiffel said. ‘The Air Force wanted a mushroom cloud so large it would be visible on Earth.’” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2ccKxdh

Edited by