Steve Fetter
Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom
Contact:
Email: sfetter@wam.umd.edu
Experience
Steve Fetter is the Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland and an affiliate of the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. A physicist by training, his research interests include nuclear arms control and nonproliferation and climate change and world energy supply.
Prof. Fetter serves on the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on International Security and Arms Control, the Executive Committee of the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society, the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Board of Directors of the Arms Control Association, and on the Board of Editors of Science and Global Security and the Washington Quarterly. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society.
In 1993–1994, Fetter served as special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, for which he received an award for outstanding public service. He has been a Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow at the State Department and a visiting fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Arms Control, Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, MIT's Plasma Fusion Center, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He received a Ph.D. in energy and resources from the University of California, Berkeley, and a S.B. in physics from MIT.
Fetter's articles have appeared in Science, Nature, Scientific American, International Security, Science and Global Security, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and Arms Control Today. He has contributed chapters to more than a dozen edited volumes on arms control, is author of the book Toward a Comprehensive Test Ban, and is coauthor of The Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and The Nuclear Turning Point.
Fall 2005
"Counterforce Revisited: Assessing the Nuclear Posture Review's New Missions"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 2, volume 30
By Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom and Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program,1982-1985
Current U.S. nuclear strategy identifies new nuclear counterforce missions as a means of impeding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
June 2005
"The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel"
Journal Article, Nuclear Technology, volume 150
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Bob van der Zwaan, Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, John P. Holdren, Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program and Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom
The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel
April, 2005
Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive Materials: An Assessment of Methods and Capabilities
Report
By Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom and John P. Holdren, Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program
December 2003
The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Report
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Bob van der Zwaan, Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, John P. Holdren, Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program and Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom
For decades, there has been an intense debate over the best approach to managing spent fuel from nuclear power reactors, whether it is better to dispose of it directly in geologic repositories, or reprocess it to recover and recycle the plutonium and uranium, disposing only of the wastes from reprocessing and recycling.
Spring 2002
"Limited National and Allied Missile Defense"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 4, volume 26
By Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom and Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program,1982-1985
In an exchange of letters, James Lindsay and Michael O’Hanlon claim that in arguing that the costs of a national missile defense outweigh the benefits, the authors underestimate or ignore three possible scenarios that support the development of a limited NMD system. The authors respond.
Summer 2001
"National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 26
By Steve Fetter, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom and Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program,1982-1985
As the debate on a U.S. national missile defense intensifies, the decision about whether the United States should develop an NMD system seems to be giving way to questions over the type of system to be deployed and its scope: For example, should the United States pursue NMD against Russia or China? What are the possible security benefits and costs of limited NMD? What can the United States do to counter the international political fallout of limited NMD?
