Web Edition | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Extended deterrence and the tactical nuclear mirage

Joshua Pollack — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:50:26 -0800

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need to reassure allies has become, perhaps by default, one of the more important rationales for continuity in U.S. nuclear posture. In fact, a view frequently expressed by current and former U.S. officials holds that Washington still maintains the largest strategic nuclear arsenal in the world precisely to provide these assurances.

The climatic consequences of nuclear war

Steven Starr — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:24:04 -0800

Although the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is supposed to include all aspects of the strategy and doctrine that govern the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, it once again will not consider one crucial question: What would be the long-term consequences to Earth's environment if the U.S. nuclear arsenal were detonated during a conflict?

Do professional ethics matter in war?

Hugh Gusterson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:58:55 -0800

What happens when the U.S. military decides that an academic discipline's professional ethics code is a nuisance?

That is the situation in which anthropology now finds itself.

Assessing the QDR and 2011 defense budget

Gordon Adams — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:58:36 -0800

The new Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the fiscal year 2011 defense budget request have arrived. Unfortunately, they miss the mark: The QDR vastly expands the military's missions, and the budget responds in kind by expanding for the fourteenth consecutive year.

Better incorporating ethicists into the life sciences

Malcolm Dando — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:10:50 -0800

In interdisciplinary discussions there are usually disagreements over terminology. I noticed this firsthand at a January seminar I attended in Australia that brought together some 40 natural scientists, social scientists, philosophers, ethicists, and policy makers to discuss the role and limits of ethics in regards to the dual-use problem in the life sciences.

What to do about tactical nuclear weapons

Pavel Podvig — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:32:08 -0800

Since the United States and Russia might soon sign a new treaty that limits their strategic nuclear weapons, it's natural to wonder about Washington and Moscow's tactical nuclear weapons, which the treaty won't cover. The hope is that the momentum for a nuclear-weapon-free world, the renewed U.S.-Russian negotiations, and the ongoing review of the U.S. nuclear posture and NATO strategic concept will help make progress on reducing nonstrategic nuclear arsenals--an issue that has been largely neglected for more than a decade.

The Obama disarmament paradox: A rebuttal

John Isaacs — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:17:30 -0800

Greg Mello's recent Bulletin article "The Obama Disarmament Paradox" distorts the Obama administration's nuclear agenda by making unjustified assumptions that discredit President Barack Obama's historic commitment to seek a nuclear-weapon-free world. Obama has committed to such a goal several times--both before and after his election in November 2008. But Mello calls that a "vague aspiration" rather than a commitment. Yet the evidence he provides to support his assertion isn't persuasive.

Activating a North Korea policy

John W. Lewis — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:17:37 -0800

It is routine in U.S. foreign policy for a pot not boiling over to be moved to the back burner. Precisely because the North Korean issue is not boiling, however, might offer an all-too-rare chance to make progress with Pyongyang. Over the past several months, the North has signaled publicly and privately that it is in engagement mode. In Washington, arguments abound about whether or not this is a stall tactic or a trick, but we'll never know if we don't move ahead with serious and sustained probing of the North's position.

The Obama disarmament paradox

Greg Mello — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:05:20 -0800

Last April in Prague, President Barack Obama gave a speech that many have interpreted as a commitment to significant nuclear disarmament.

Biological threats: A matter of balance

Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:41:45 -0800

The Graham-Talent WMD Commission asserted again last week that a bioterrorism attack that "will fundamentally change the character of life for the world's democracies" is highly likely to occur within the next four years. The commission argues that the United States must urgently expand its efforts to develop vaccines and other medical countermeasures against potential bioterrorism agents.

The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Separating the U.S. civilian and defense missions

Gordon Adams — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:56:44 -0800

The State Department and USAID are in the midst of conducting an unprecedented Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which is intended to bolster the civilian capabilities of U.S. statecraft. It is taking place in the context of calls by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen to enhance our civilian capabilities in order to avoid the "militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. This, of course, is a positive step forward.

Down the rabbit hole of BWC verification

Malcolm Dando — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:05:05 -0800

Everyone is familiar with the nightmare in which they haven't studied for tomorrow's exam. As I've gotten older, and become a teacher myself, this nightmare has mutated into one in which I've forgotten to prepare the exam for my students! I recently had this nightmare in novel form on a subject I hold dear--international treaty verification.

Germany's slowing nuclear phaseout

Len Ackland — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:32:55 -0800

Eight years ago, a German coalition government comprised of Social Democrats and Greens passed legislation phasing out the country's nuclear power plants, which provide one-quarter of German electricity, after roughly 32 years of operation. Given that schedule, at least two of the country's 17 nuclear reactors should be shutting down this year.

An American suicide bomber?

Hugh Gusterson — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:05:10 -0800

"As for the Taliban fighters, they not only don't cherish life, they expend it freely in suicide bombings. It's difficult to imagine an American suicide bomber," Washington Post pundit Richard Cohen opined in a recent column.

Is the cyber threat a weapon of mass destruction?

Joshua Pollack — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:13:16 -0800

Google's surprise announcement of "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on its systems--a case of computer-aided espionage--has also raised the specter of offensive warfare. Defense News quotes Adm. Robert Willard of U.S.

Sanctioning Iran further won't work

George A. Lopez — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:30:38 -0800

As 2010 began, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki intensified the nuclear standoff between Iran and the United States when he announced that by the end of the month the West must accept Tehran's counterproposal to a U.N.-brokered deal to meet Iran's nuclear fuel needs. Iran's counteroffer rejects a plan that the West insists had been agreed upon in principle to swap Tehran's low enriched uranium for ready-to-use nuclear fuel.

The Nuclear Posture Review, now and later

Joshua Pollack — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:16:43 -0800

The long-awaited report of the third Nuclear Posture Review is now scheduled for delivery to Congress on March 1. According to a recent New York Times article, the posture review will consider the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism to be equally as important as the nuclear deterrence mission.

Bringing a "culture of responsibility" to life scientists

Malcolm Dando — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:22:12 -0800

In a 2005 essay entitled "Biomedical Research and Biosecurity," Robert Steinbrook, the national correspondent of the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded, "Establishing biosecurity policies for biomedical research without obstructing scientific progress or disrupting the usual procedures for scientific communication is a complex matter." Indeed it is--and has been.

Reducing the nuclear threat: The argument for public safety

Richard Rhodes — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:24:13 -0800

Today, at the other end of the long trek down the glacier of the Cold War, the nuclear threat has seemingly calved off and fallen into the sea. In 2007, the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project found that 12 countries rated the growing gap between rich and poor as the greatest danger to the world. HIV/AIDS led the list (or tied) in 16 countries, religious and ethnic hatred in another 12. Pollution was identified as the greatest menace in 19 countries, while substantial majorities in 25 countries thought global warming was a "very serious" problem.

A thought for Copenhagen and beyond

Kurt Zenz House — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:08:06 -0800

Much has been written in anticipation of the current meeting of diplomats and international climate change experts in Copenhagen. Indeed, these men and women deserve our gratitude because forging and implementing an international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most intractable problems that humanity has ever faced.