Steve Fetter

Fall 2005

"Counterforce Revisited: Assessing the Nuclear Posture Review's New Missions"

Journal Article, International Security, issue 2, volume 30

By Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program and Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1982-1985; Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security

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 John P. Holdren, Former Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom and Bob van der Zwaan, Former Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation research group/Project on Managing the Atom Project/Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, 2001–2005

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 John P. Holdren, Former Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program and Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program

December 2003

The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Report

By Bob van der Zwaan, Former Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation research group/Project on Managing the Atom Project/Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, 2001–2005, John P. Holdren, Former Director and Faculty Chair, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program and Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, 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 Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1982-1985; Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security and Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program

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 Charles Glaser, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1982-1985; Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security and Steve Fetter, Former Associate, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program

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?