• 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 Nuclear Weapons

January 20, 2010

Obama at One Year: "A" for Transforming Nuclear Policy, Incomplete For Execution

How’d Obama do on nuclear weapons issues during his first year in office?

The title gives it away, but click here for the Center’s report card.  A few excerpts are pasted below…

John Isaacs, the Center’s executive director, praised the President for “elevating the attention of the world on the 23,000 nuclear weapons remaining across the globe and the danger that some of these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Isaacs added: “President Obama’s forthrightness about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to take immediate action to avoid a nuclear holocaust constitute the most significant remarks by an American President on nuclear disarmament in the last half century.”

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (U.S Army, ret.) the Center’s chairman, emphasized that “while Obama’s first year vision was vital, the ultimate judgment on Obama’s performance will be based on how he begins to realize this vision over the coming months and years.”

“This President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his vision and the initiatives he has launched, and we will work closely with him to realize that vision,” concluded Gard.

Posted in: Nuclear Weapons, Nukes of Hazard blog

September 14, 2009

2009-2010 College Debate Topic on Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to Background Materials, Publications, &Organizations

by Travis Sharp and Kingston Reif Updated December 3, 2009 DEBATE TOPIC Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. BACKGROUND MATERIALS BY TOPIC 1. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) START Resource Center (Center […]

Posted in: Nuclear Weapons, Nukes of Hazard blog

July 15, 2009

Factsheet on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)

By Kingston Reif and Madeleine Foley PURPOSE OF FISSILE MATERIAL CUTOFF TREATY   A fissile material cutoff treaty would ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes. Fissile materials, principally highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium, are the essential ingredients for building nuclear weapons and powering nuclear reactors. The effective control and elimination […]

Posted in: Asia, China, Israel, Issue Center, Middle East, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, United States

July 6, 2009

Decrease Stockpiles, Increase Security

by Robert G. Gard and Travis Sharp Published on The Huffington Post on July 6, 2009 This week in Moscow, Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev are holding a summit meeting that will heavily influence the next decade of U.S.-Russian relations. If the two leaders strike up a personal and political rapport, it could unfreeze a […]

Posted in: Issue Center, Nuclear Weapons, Press & In the News on Nuclear Weapons

March 17, 2009

Are They? Or Are They Not?

The U.S. government should be more cautious in its statements about Iran’s nuclear intentions. If we want the Iranians to sit at the negotiating table, we need to stop faulting them for things we are not sure about. As our executive director John Isaacs said last month, “Negotiations with Iran are more likely to bear fruit if Iranians don’t feel like the United States is officially accusing them of being dead-set on going nuclear.”

The recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is a step in the right direction.  Blair told Congress this month that Iran has not yet made an executive decision to convert its low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons. Neither has Iran decided to develop the technology needed to load an atomic bomb onto a ballistic missile, according to Blair.

Whether or not the Islamic Republic has made up its mind to develop a nuclear weapon makes an enormous difference to U.S. strategy. “If we definitely know what Iran wants to do, that they are planning to build a nuclear weapon, then it is indeed a very dangerous situation,” Isaacs noted on NPR’s Morning Edition in February. “If they’re only moving in that direction and haven’t made a final decision, not only does that take some time urgency off, but it also means there’s an opportunity for the Obama administration to try to launch some negotiations with the Iranian leadership.”

Iran can move toward a nuclear bomb “if it chooses to do so,” said Blair (emphasis mine.)  Added Blair: “Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop one.” This leaves the window open for U.S.-Iranian diplomacy.

With his carefully picked words, Blair walked a fine line and aimed to strike a cautionary but not overhyped note about available intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. Blair set a useful example for officials to follow when discussing delicate questions regarding Iran.

Blair’s statements, however, seem to have created quite a bit of confusion. Blair appeared to contradict earlier statements by CIA director Leon Panetta, who told Congress that, based on the information he’d seen, “there is no question” that Iran is seeking a nuclear capability. Something similar happened earlier this month when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen told journalists that Iran had enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon on the same day that Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that Iran “was not close to a weapon.”

If administration officials can’t get their message straight, how can we expect the Iranians to know where we stand? The Obama administration should stay away from the microphones when debating what is inside the minds of Iranian leaders. Blair’s nuanced language is welcome and should be the standard throughout the executive branch.

Posted in: Iran Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nukes of Hazard blog

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 132
  • Page 133
  • Page 134
  • Page 135
  • Page 136
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Despite DOGE, Pentagon escapes Donald Trump’s budget cuts unscathed July 2, 2025
  • How Iran could build a bomb in secret – despite Trump’s $30bn offer June 27, 2025
  • Dall’attacco all’Iran ai record a Wall Street June 26, 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