Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Megan, our newest Communications Intern
>
Megan Franco is the spring 2015 Communications Intern at Council for a Livable World and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, where her duties include digital outreach, blogging, and web content and social media management. Previously,
Introducing Sarah Tully, our newest addition to the Center staff who joins the team as the new Research and Policy Associate. Meet Sarah: I am thrilled to join the Center and Council team full-time as Research & Policy Associate having interned he…
Curious how much money US lawmakers appropriated to prevent nuclear terrorism and the spread of nuclear materials for fiscal year 2015? Deep within the 1,600 page Cromnibus, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) received $1.616 billion dollars, a $337 million reduction from FY 14.
Some good programs went unfunded, like cooperative threat reduction work with Russia. Some bad programs were funded well above the Obama administration’s request, like the Mixed Oxide fuel program dubbed the “fuel to nowhere.”
** Click here for our full analysis of the NNSA’s FY15 nuclear nonproliferation budget
The United States is headed for trouble, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, in his recent article “War, hot or cold?” The crux of the issue: the U.S. is balancing military spending for two non-complementary styles of war. On the one hand, the U.S. is developing its intelligence and armed forces to fight a “hot war” against terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State; on the other, the U.S. is developing costly weapons programs to ensure superiority in a Cold-War-style standoff with Russia and China. As Pincus is concerned, funding both styles may not be practical or affordable, meaning “Americans have some tough choices ahead.”
“These days, terrorists are the first threat,” says Pincus, “and not a single one will be deterred by a nuclear warhead.”
Negotiations with Iran are set to resume in Geneva on January 18, and with a new deadline for an agreement looming, returning lawmakers are poised to make a move toward additional sanctions. Republicans may choose to hold off until signs of a breakdown in negotiations have surfaced, but others have suggested that a bill could move more quickly. On the Sunday before Congress reconvened for the new year, Sen. Corker said that a bill would be expected to move through “regular order” in the banking committee, but did not imply that would happen immediately. His answer when asked about timing was, “we’ll see.” But Sen. Graham has suggested that a bill will be taken up in January.
