RUSSIA AND FORMER SOVIET UNION
October 9, 2012
"The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50"
Op-Ed, Moscow Times
By Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
"We can conclude that nuclear deterrence mattered in the crisis and that the nuclear dimension certainly figured in Kennedy's thinking. But it was not the ratio of nuclear weapons that mattered so much as the fear that even a few nuclear weapons would wreak intolerable devastation."
AP Photo
April 2012
"Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Operations in the Nuclear Zero Era"
Paper
By Ronald G. Allen, Jr., Former Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom, 2011–2012
Without significant change in the geopolitical landscape, nuclear weapons will remain a relevant portion of America's long-term national security strategy. Therefore, the burdens and responsibilities of maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent force are paramount to ensure credibility for America and her allies. Bottom line: nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are still relevant today and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, to maintian international strategic stability we must embrace the necessity of nuclear deterrence, develop strategic policy that supports deterrence as an essential element and adequately resource the enterprise.
March 30, 2012
A Blueprint for Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
Op-Ed, TIME / time.com
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom and Eben Harrell, Associate, Project on Managing the Atom
The United States and Russia possess 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons and most of the world’s weapons-usable nuclear material, and so bear a special responsibility for preventing nuclear terrorism. Unfortunately, both countries missed an opportunity in Seoul – neither committed to major new steps to strengthen nuclear security at home beyond the steps they were already taking, nor did they announced any new joint initiatives. That must change.
AP Photo/Jorge Saenz
March 2012
Progress on Securing Nuclear Weapons and Materials: The Four-Year Effort and Beyond
Report
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom, Eben Harrell, Associate, Project on Managing the Atom and Martin B. Malin, Executive Director, Project on Managing the Atom
On the eve of the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, a new study finds that an international initiative to secure all vulnerable nuclear stockpiles within four years has reduced the dangers they pose.
AP Photo
February 27, 2012
"Smart Nuclear Reduction"
Op-Ed, Boston Globe
By Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy
"The nuclear debate in Washington is only about the past, about a notion of this nation as the better of only two options. It's as if the critics are wondering: why must we tinker with everything that made America once spectacular? Endless discussions about whether America is exceptional or not (and whether this president thinks we are or not) are preconditioned on a memory that equates the size of our nuclear arsenal with our own relevance. It is simplicity in its most perverse form. What makes us exceptional is our capacity to adapt to a world that has changed, not holding onto a world dynamic that ended long ago."
January 23, 2012
HEU Consolidation:The U.S. and Russian pictures
Presentation
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom
A presentation discussing the current state of highly enriched uranium (HEU) minimization efforts in the U.S. and Russia, with recommendations for further steps in consolidating fissile material.
AP Photo
January/February 2012
"Nuclear Weapons 2011: Momentum Slows, Reality Returns"
Journal Article, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, issue 1, volume 68
By Steven E. Miller, Director, International Security Program; Editor-in-Chief, International Security; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom
In the Doomsday Clock issue of the Bulletin, the author takes a look at five events that unfolded in 2011 and that seem certain to cast a powerful shadow in months and years to come. No new breakthroughs occurred, the author writes, adding that 2012 could be a much more difficult year.
October 2011
Our Own Worst Enemy? Institutional Interests and the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Expertise
Book
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many observers feared that terrorists and rogue states would obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or knowledge about how to build them from the vast Soviet nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons complex. The United States launched a major effort to prevent former Soviet WMD experts, suddenly without salaries, from peddling their secrets. In Our Own Worst Enemy, Sharon Weiner chronicles the design, implementation, and evolution of four U.S. programs that were central to this nonproliferation policy and assesses their successes and failures.
Winner of the 2012 Louis Brownlow Book Award
AP Photo
May 26, 2011
"Preventing the Next Fukushima"
Op-Ed
By Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom and Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
This week, when the leaders of the G8 industrial democracies gather in France, their meeting will include discussions of what steps must be taken to strengthen global nuclear safety and global nuclear security in the aftermath of the tragedy at Fukushima. The Belfer Center's Matthew Bunn and Olli Heinonen suggest new actions the world community should take in five key areas in order to prevent another Fukushima.
AP Photo
April 14, 2011
"Academic Stovepipes Undermine U.S. Security"
Op-Ed, World Politics Review
By Joan Johnson-Freese and Thomas M. Nichols, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom, 2008–2011
"Missile defense represents the most severe collision of space, nuclear weapons and politics. Accustomed to technological miracles, Americans assume that technical problems can always be fixed with enough money. Engineers are not asked if missile defense is a viable solution to the horrific threat of nuclear warheads carried on missiles, and political analysts do not care about the difficulties involved in developing hardware. In the end, this disconnect could produce a situation where a U.S. president is asked to rely on a system that technical experts cannot assure him will work but that political advisers insist must be brandished."
