With implementation day for the Iran nuclear agreement around the corner, implicit nuclear threats from Russia, an expensive nuclear weapons modernization program in the U.S., striking revelations of attempted nuclear smuggling, and threats of weapons testing from North Korea, nuclear weapons policy is receiving more attention during debates on U.S. foreign policy.
The U.S. Needs to Stop Throwing Weapons at Problems
The survival of the Iran nuclear agreement in Congress sent countless members of Congress scrambling for new ways to demonstrate their opposition to the deal and to throw sand into the gears required to carry out the agreement. One of the more preposterous ideas put forward was to send Massive Ordnance Penetrators (or MOPs) to Israel. MOPs are essentially really, really big bombs that have the capacity to penetrate up to 200 feet into the ground.
Looking Beyond New START to the Future of U.S.-Russian Arms Control Treaties
On October 1,, 2015 the U.S Department of State’s Bureau for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance released its count of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons covered under the New START treaty. For the first time since the treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011, the United States has dropped below the imposed limit on deployed strategic warheads.
America’s Nuclear Weapons are Affordable, But at What Cost?
A forthcoming study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) serves as a reminder that the US must evaluate the worthiness of investing billions of dollars into its nuclear arsenal. The study addresses affordability and concludes that “U.S. nuclear forces are affordable because their projected costs account for a small percentage of the overall defense budget.”
Senator Murphy’s Call for a Progressive Foreign Policy
The United States’ foreign policy toolbox needs some re-tooling, according to Council-endorsed Senators Murphy (D-Conn.), Schatz (D-Hawaii), and Heinrich (D-N.M.)
