The Candidates on Nuclear Weapons

The candidates on nukes- “Donald Trump calls the U.S. military ‘depleted.’ It urgently needs more planes, ships, troops and nuclear weapons, he says, to ensure American predominance in the world. Hillary Clinton has a much different view of the defense and military challenges facing the next president,” writes Robert Burns in a summary of the candidates’ respective positions on military defense issues for The Washington Post.

--On nuclear weapons, “TRUMP...has asserted that the U.S. military has fallen dangerously behind Russia in nuclear capability. This does not square with the facts, and Trump has demonstrated only a limited knowledge of U.S. nuclear weapons... CLINTON: This is one of the few areas of defense policy where the Democratic candidate has been specific about her intentions. She has defended the New START treaty as benefiting the U.S., and she has promised that early in her presidential term she would undertake a top-to-bottom review of the nation’s nuclear weapons requirements and capabilities.” Full summary here. http://wapo.st/2eHAH3c

Tweet - @RANDCorporation: Expert: The US will need to conduct a Nuclear Posture Review within the context of an increasingly aggressive Russia http://bit.ly/2eqYuYX

Differing views abound on ban treaty - The upcoming vote on the nuclear weapons ban treaty in the United Nations has sparked a flurry of debate. According to the U.S. representative to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, Robert Wood, “A treaty banning nuclear weapons will not lead to any further reductions because it will not include the states that possess nuclear weapons.”

--Presenting the other side, Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, commented, “I would argue this [nuclear weapons ban] is consistent with Obama’s vision of having a world without nuclear weapons... The legal prohibition of nuclear weapons is by no means a substitute for the disarmament actions that need to be taken, but it can contribute to further delegitimization of nuclear weapons.” For full analysis of the arguments presented, see Colum Lynch’s article for Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/2eZm5yE

Tweet - @GlobalZero: Vatican calls nuke deterrence a "tragic illusion," seeks legal end to nukes through @UN. http://bit.ly/2dUFk8B

Time for leadership on no-first-use - “Where a technology as destructive as nuclear weapons is concerned, someone must take the first step. Nations that sign on to a treaty such as the NPT do so in the belief that other nations will do likewise for the sake of international peace. Over the years, this attitude has largely been rewarded,” argues Ta Minh Tuan in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

--“So why must Washington wait for other nuclear weapon states to declare no-first-use policies in order to do so itself? A no-first-use declaration by a superpower such as the United States would only increase US prestige and would set a good example for other nuclear weapon states. Arguing in favor of US nuclear ambiguity only means accepting a chicken-or-the-egg status quo.” Full argument here. http://bit.ly/2eNphJF

Tighter UN sanctions against North Korea - “North Korean officials lashed out Monday at efforts in the United Nations to strengthen sanctions following the North’s latest missile launches and nuclear test in September,” according to The Associated Press. “The officials told an Associated Press Television crew in Pyongyang that sanctions targeting the nuclear and missile tests are ‘criminal documents’ and accused the United States of orchestrating the condemnation.”

--The United Nations Security Council “deplored all North Korean missile tests, saying they contribute to the country’s ‘development of nuclear weapons delivery systems and increase tension”... [And] called on all countries ‘to redouble their efforts’ to implement sanctions and expressed regret that Pyongyang is diverting resources when its citizens ‘have great unmet needs.’” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2eOnLIi

Tweet - @Livableworld: How should the next @POTUS deal with a nuclear North Korea? http://bit.ly/2eCGshS

Talk to North Korea - “North Korea’s demonstrations of the ever-improving effectiveness of its nuclear weapons capabilities—including its fifth and most powerful nuclear test last month—pose a grave danger. Too readily, they can result in devastating military actions [by opposing states],” write Frederick Carriere, Louis Kriesberg and Stuart Thorson for Foreign Policy in Focus. “Although both candidates for U.S. president have rightly denounced such a show of force, neither has offered a plan to steer us off the current course toward escalation. Now is the time... to propose and discuss more effective policies.”

--“[A] plausible strategy would be to reassure North Korea that its existence would not be threatened if it ceased to rely on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems... The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula would require a sequence of steps. Given its enormous power advantage, the United States should take the initial step. Such a move by Washington would provide time for serious US-DPRK negotiations on concrete steps such as nonaggression pacts and freezes to take place. If, however, no progress is made, a return to the status quo ante is still possible.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/2eFLYSx

Strategy for North Korea - “Washington should... consider pursuing a coordinated diplomatic initiative, aimed at limiting or reversing North Korea’s nuclear program. Secretary Kerry has already recommended the United States promote the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran (JCPOA) as a model for a future arrangement with North Korea,” writes Robert Cantelmo for The National Interest. “Such a deal would fall within the same ‘transactional’ category as the JCPOA; the United States should not offer any normalization of relations with North Korea, but instead focus on dealing specifically with their nuclear weapons.”

--“Specifically, Washington should seek a moratorium on ballistic missile testing for ten years, a freeze on the production and testing of North Korean nuclear weapons, and regular access to nuclear facilities by nuclear inspectors. In exchange, Washington should offer an end to bilateral and multilateral sanctions and an assurance the U.S. will not pursue regime change in North Korea.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/2fc4hAG

Putin’s nuclear brinksmanship - “The improvement of security for nuclear materials like weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, as well as reductions in nuclear weapons arsenals, brought Russia and the United States together over the past 25 years. But the common ground has been disappearing as President Vladi­mir Putin takes a more confrontational stance toward the United States and tensions deepen over Russian actions in Syria and Ukraine...[he has] made a crude attempt to turn nuclear security into a bargaining chip,” writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

--“[Putin] complained about ‘unfriendly actions’ by the United States, and demanded an end to all sanctions against Russia over the war in Ukraine; compensation for the damage they caused; repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which penalizes Russian officials involved in human rights violations; and pullback of U.S. forces from the new members of NATO. This is a misguided gambit. The nuclear security agreements were not created as a favor to the United States; rather they made the world a bit safer and helped avoid a potential catastrophe. Hardly the stuff of games.” Full piece here. http://wapo.st/2dFko9q

Quick Hits:

--“U.S., South Korea must shore up alliance to keep North in check,” by Yomiuri Shimbum. http://trib.in/2eHO5Ez

--“Russians Conduct Nuclear-Bomb Survival Drills as Cold War Heats Up,” by Thomas Grove for The Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/2eK3T9t

--“Park reaffirms sanctions to end N. Korea nuke program,” published by The Korea Times. http://bit.ly/2e70nEK

--“Making It Happen: Trade Union Movement Backs A World Without Nuclear Weapons,” published by Peter Jennings The Huffington Post. http://huff.to/2dFCkfn

Events:

--“Eye on Iran: Assessing the Nuclear Deal; Conflict with Saudi Arabia; and the Future of US Diplomacy in the Middle East,” at the Iran Project. October 26, 6-7pm, at Aquinas College, Upper Donnelly Building, 1607 Robinson Road SE, Grand Rapids, MI United States. Details here. http://bit.ly/2e7aHwK

--“Military Budgets In India And Pakistan: Trajectories, Priorities, And Risks,” at The Stimson Center. October 26 12:30-2pm, 211 Connecticut Ave. NW, 8th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20036. Details & RSVP here. http://bit.ly/2eny19Q

--“Report Release: New Data on the Iran Nuclear Deal” with a panel discussion on October 27 at 1:30pm. Event hosted by Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans at National Press Club, 13th Floor, Murrow Room, Washington, DC. 200045. RSVP to morad@paaia.org. https://goo.gl/Z4iGwa