• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Archives for Front and Center

June 22, 2009

U.S. Arms Sales May Top $40 Billion in 2009

A big focus of President Obama’s foreign policy has been to build consensus with other countries in order to tackle international security issues. Unfortunately, a rise in arms sales may result.

Last week, it was reported that U.S. arms sales are on pace to top $40 billion in 2009. That is up from at least $32 billion in 2008 and $25 billion in 2007.

Numerous Obama administration officials have stressed the importance of international coalitions and partnerships in dealing with security challenges. Implicit in these statements is an offer to sell weapons to countries that are considered key U.S. allies.

There are, of course, other factors at work. For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, funded mainly by the U.S. in partnership with eight other countries, is expected to result in over 4,000 fighter orders in the coming years.  There has also been a more aggressive pursuit of foreign sales by U.S. companies since Secretary Gates’s defense cuts were announced in April.

Arms sales should not become the cornerstone of Obama’s drive to reinvigorate America’s standing in the international community. Particularly in the developing world, arms sales to repressive regimes discredit the United States in the eyes of local populations. How can we say we stand for freedom and liberty while providing undemocratic governments with weapons that allow them to remain in power and crack down on internal dissent?

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

June 22, 2009

Enthusiasm for Nuclear Fuel Bank Runs on Empty

The global uranium fuel bank was back in the news last week when developing nations on the IAEA Board angrily stalled discussions. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei faced widespread discontent when he requested that a detailed plan for a fuel bank be submitted by September 2009.

Delegations from developing nations said that they would not support any measures that could “endanger their inalienable and sovereign right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop their own nuclear fuel cycle.” They also objected to “attempts meant to discourage the pursuit of any peaceful nuclear technology on grounds of its alleged ‘sensitivity’.” India, a non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reportedly led the charge against the proposal…

IAEA officials claim that talks have not stopped completely, but it will take much more time and political will to get the fuel bank project off the ground. The outcome of Iran’s presidential elections and the appointment of a new IAEA Director General are also complicating factors.

The idea for an independently monitored international fuel bank has been around since President Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech. It has sparked interest in recent years due to fears that Iran’s enrichment program will lead to an arms-race in the Middle East. The two most promising proposals today come from the DC-based Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and Russia.  NTI, backed by billionaire Warren Buffet, pledged $50 million for the effort, and Russia has offered to host the IAEA-administered bank at its Angarsk enrichment facility.

In 2006, former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Dick Lugar wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune calling for a “new international non-proliferation standard that prevents countries from using the guise of nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons.” In 2007, then Senator Barack Obama introduced the International Nuclear Fuel for Peace and Non-Proliferation Act of 2007, which supported the fuel bank effort and would have authorized $50 million for the project. The most important fuel bank endorsement came in Obama’s April 5 speech in Prague.

Considering this enthusiasm at the highest levels of the U.S. government, why have so many U.S. legislators been silent about the non-proliferation regime since April? The answer to this question, quite simply, is Iran.

America’s Iran agenda bears heavily on the survival of the fuel bank initiative. Iran’s progress on its enrichment program has stirred fears among other states in the Middle East, who have since voiced desire for help in developing their own civilian nuclear technology regimes. Despite this pressure, President Obama has been careful not to sacrifice the fuel bank initiative. He acknowledged Iran’s “right to access peaceful nuclear power” and said that while it has “legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations…the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”  

The fuel bank initiative might not be dead, but it is certainly in critical condition. Now we must wait until the dust settles in the streets of Tehran before taking the next step forward.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

June 18, 2009

HASC Gives Nonproliferation a Needed Boost

On Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee marked up the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Among the provisions included were some especially promising nonproliferation boosts. Here’s how a couple of programs that Kingston and Cuyler were concerned about fared:

–The Department of Energy’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which tracks down and secures loose nuclear material internationally, received an additional $224 million.

–$179 million was added for the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program, another DoE effort, which would go towards installing radiation sensors at risky border crossings and tracking down potential WMD components.

Also included in HASC’s markup was an additional $30 million for the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, aka “Nunn-Lugar.” As Travis wrote last month, funding for the program steadily decreased during the Bush years, dropping 19 percent. HASC’s increase will bring Nunn-Lugar funding to $434 million – a good sign – but it is still short of the Bush administration average of $474 million per year.

Between these three programs, funding for international nonproliferation efforts was upped by HASC by $433 million, bringing the total for 2010 to $3.2 billion, $223 million more than last year’s budget.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

June 16, 2009

UN Secretary-General vs. Paula DeSutter on the CTBT

Yesterday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement on the urgency of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: The conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) more than a decade ago was an import…

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

June 10, 2009

Debating Nuclear Abolition

Last Sunday the New York Times’ Room For Debate blog hosted a discussion on nuclear abolition.  There were four participants: Nina Tannenwald, associate research professor of international relations at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, Ken Adelman, former Director of the Arms Control Agency, Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, and John Mueller, Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University.

Overall I thought the discussion did a good job of laying out some of the key fault lines in the debate over abolition.  It also exposed the weakness of many of the arguments against the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Some comments below the fold.

1. Nina Tannenwald makes an excellent point in noting that “[t]oday, no U.S. agency is devoted primarily to promoting nuclear self-restraint, and the unsurprising consequence is that American policy has, until President Obama, focused mainly on the restraint of others.”  The gutting of the arms control and nonproliferation bureaucracy under the Bush administration is an issue I’ve followed for a while, and it’s good to see that the FY 2010 Foreign Relations Authorization Bill, on the House floor today, contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening arms control and nonproliferation activities at the Department of State.    

2. After asserting that we’ll never “be able to verify nuclear matters everywhere around the world,” Ken Adelman suggests that we would be better off pursing “real steps” to reduce nuclear dangers.  Such steps include stabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan as a cohesive state; stopping the Iranian effort; assuring the security of Russian nuclear weapons; precluding trade in enriched uranium and plutonium; and making sure existing nuclear states have PALs (permissive action links) and other devices to render the weapons useless for non-authorized personnel (like terrorists).

First, as George Perkovich and James Action, co-authors of the Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, note, “verification is important but ultimately not as vital as political-security dynamics and enforcement, because verification cannot be perfect, and even if it were, the challenges of deterring and defeating an actor that chose to break a prohibition would remain.”  

Second, it’s telling that the “real steps” proposed by Adelman do not include deep reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, ratification of the CTBT, achieving a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, U.S. adoption of a declaratory policy of “no first use” (or even of “defensive last resort), etc.  Based on the priorities highlighted by Adelman, it seems pretty clear that he believes that nuclear weapons remain as important to the security of the United States as ever, and that we should not be concerned about reducing their salience.

3. The always provocative John Mueller argues that the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is misguided.  Instead, we should “just let it happen.”  According to Mueller, nuclear weapons “have proved to be useless and a very substantial waste of money and of scientific and technical talent,” and “the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been far slower than routinely predicted because.”  “To the degree that these observations come to be accepted,” he writes, “nuclear weapons will naturally fade — though probably never disappear — from the scene.”

While I’m sympathetic to much of Mueller’s argument, the problem with letting nuclear weapons “naturally fade…from the scene” is that we cannot simply assume that the logic of deterrence or the slow pace of proliferation that has characterized the past 60 years will characterize the next 60.  Moreover, the nuclear weapons establishment in the United States and other nuclear weapons states is notorious for being incredibly resistant to change.  Without guidance from high-level civilian leaders to significantly reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons, significant change is unlikely to take place.  Finally, failure on the part of the U.S. to explicitly endorse abolition as a goal could make it impossible to secure the support we need to constrain the Iranian and North Korea nuclear programs, limit the spread of dangerous enrichment and reprocessing technologies, and reduce other nuclear dangers.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 129
  • Page 130
  • Page 131
  • Page 132
  • Page 133
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 135
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • We should observe July 16 but celebrate July 17 July 16, 2025
  • The Korean Peninsula Has Seen Grand Overtures Come and Go – What Matters Now is Whether Small Steps Can Still Lead Somewhere July 9, 2025
  • Israeli nuclear weapons at the heart of a strategic taboo July 4, 2025
  • Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Budget Request Briefing Book July 3, 2025
  • After US and Israeli strikes, some nuclear experts say Iran could be more dangerous July 2, 2025

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2025 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency