 |

This section of the Source Documents Library highlights major
research reports and web-based publications U.S. nuclear policy. NTI and the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies update this section weekly. (To access documents
published by governmental organizations, see the Governmental Documents section.)
For links to nongovernmental organizations that regularly publish
journal articles, see the
NTI links
page and the Periodicals section.
updated April 4, 2008

|
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments and Issues |
Amy F. Woolf, Center for Defense Information, February 25, 2008
View
reportIn her report, Amy F. Woolf of the Congressional Research Service examines the triad that makes up the U.S. nuclear forces: submarine-launched missiles, ICBMs and bombers. The report takes an in-depth look at the history of each delivery system and at differences between the military services controlling the weapons systems and congressional mandates to change them in spite of service disagreements. |
|
Toward True Security |
Natural Resources Defense Council, February 2008
View
report This report is an updated version of the 2001 report Toward True Security: A U.S. Nuclear Posture for the Next Decade. The new report lists and examines the first ten steps that the U.S. next president should take in order to achieve nuclear reduction in the U.S., as well as in the rest of the world. These steps would constitute key parts of a framework for a global prohibition on nuclear weapons and help establish the conditions under which such a prohibition would become politically feasible. |
|
White House Nonproliferation Office Created |
C. I. Bosley, Arms Control Association, September 2007
View
reportOn Aug. 3, President George W. Bush signed into law measures designed to strengthen U.S. nuclear nonproliferation programs. Congress had approved the measures in late July as part of broader legislation aimed at implementing recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. In 2004, that panel had proposed several initiatives to bolster efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD). |
|
House Approves Nonproliferation Initiatives |
Miles A. Pomper, Arms Control Association, March 2007
View
reportThe House of Representatives approved several nonproliferation initiatives in January as part of a broader bill to fully implement the recommendations of an independent commission that investigated the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Implementing a campaign pledge of new Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House approved the measure 299-128 on Jan. 9 in one of the first pieces of legislation of the new Democratic-controlled Congress. Congressional aides said that they expect the measure eventually to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee with similarly broad legislation approved Feb. 15 by the Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee.
|
|
Bush Cuts Threat Reduction Budget |
Daniel Arnaudo, Arms Control Association, March 2007
View
reportPresident George W. Bush’s 2008 fiscal year budget request calls for more cuts in programs related to nonproliferation activities in the former Soviet Union, although some individual threat reduction programs would see gains or maintain funding.
Some proposed reductions reflect the winding down or closure of programs, while other cuts may reflect a shift in priorities away from traditional U.S.-Russian programs such as Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) to more regional or international programs.
|
|
A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing
with Iran |
Michael McFaul, Abbas Milani, and Larry Diamond,
The Washington Quarterly Winter 2006-07
View
reportIn its nuclear negotiations with the rest of the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been pursuing a strategy of “heads you lose, tails we win.” In its carefully crafted and creatively ambiguous response to UN Security Council Resolution 1696, the Iranian regime claims that it is willing to negotiate on all issues, including suspension of enrichment activities, but will not accept any precondition for such negotiations. Their strategy is clear: delay, obfuscate, and prevaricate to buy time to race ahead with technical efforts to master the complex uranium-enrichment process. At the same time, by appearing flexible, they offer China and Russia enough ammunition to impede the West, the United States in particular, from pursuing any serious coercive action endorsed by the United Nations. |
|
Congress Exempts India From Nuclear Trade Rules |
Wade Boese, Arms Control Association,
January, 2007
View
reportPresident George W. Bush Dec. 18 signed into law legislation making India eligible for broad U.S. civil nuclear exports for the first time in roughly three decades. But commencement of such trade still hinges on a series of negotiations that India’s leader warned would be “difficult.”
At a White House signing ceremony, Bush hailed the act as “one of the most important steps” toward reviving U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation. U.S. nuclear trade with India essentially ceased after New Delhi’s 1974 test of a nuclear device derived partially from Canadian and U.S. technologies transferred for peaceful purposes.
|
|
U.S. Nixes Arms Control in New Space Policy |
Wade Boese, Arms Control Association, November, 2006
View
reportThe Bush administration recently released a new space policy that eschews future binding measures to regulate space activities in favor of keeping open all U.S. options, including space-based anti-missile systems, to promote and protect U.S. security and space assets.
Dated Aug. 31 but issued Oct. 5, the new policy replaces a September 1996 Clinton administration version. The October document was a slimmer, unclassified version of the actual policy.
|
|
The End of the Nonproliferation Regime? |
George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November, 2006
View
reportThe effort to constrain the acquisition and
use of nuclear weapons is perhaps the most ambitious attempt
ever made to extend the civilizing reach of the rule of law over
humankind’s destructive capacity. The United States, the Soviet
Union, and other states laid the foundation for this mission in
the 1960s with the negotiation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. |
|
U.S. nuclear threats: Then and now |
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2006
View
reportDuring an impromptu April 18 press conference, President George W. Bush was asked if his assertion that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran included the possibility of a nuclear strike. Bush reiterated, "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we're working hard to do so." In no uncertain words, the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way. |
|
Reversing the Spread of Nuclear Weapons |
Carl Robichaud, The Century Foundation,
August 29, 2006
View
reportAmerica’s most acute national security threat is a catastrophic attack with
nuclear weapons. Yet the United States has lacked a coherent and vigorous strategy to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to states and terrorist groups. Unmet priorities
include bolstering leadership and funding for threat-reduction programs and negotiating
a new bargain to close the loopholes within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
which must be substantially strengthened to meet today’s challenges. To accomplish
these goals, the nuclear weapons states must revive the old bargain embodied in the
NPT: leveraging deep and verifiable cuts in existing arsenals to achieve more stringent controls
on nuclear materials and technologies. |
|
ReSTART: The Need for a New U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Agreement |
Anatoli Diakov and Eugene Miasnikov, Arms
Control Association, September 2006
View
report
On June 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to
begin talks with the United States on replacing the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), set to expire in
2009. Calling for a “renewed dialogue on the main
disarmament issues,” Putin did not provide any specifics on
the kind of agreement he was seeking; nor was there any
direct response from Washington, although U.S. officials say
they plan to work with Russia on the issue. Therefore, it
seems valuable to look at whether it might make sense to
replace START and what role such an agreement could play in
the arms control context of the 21st century.
|
|
U.S. Policy Towards North Korea: Context and Options |
Edward A. Olsen, Center for Contemporary
Conflict, September, 2006
View
report
The United States’ policies toward North Korea attracted
increased attention in the wake of North Korea’s missile testing
on the 4th of July, 2006. The foreign and defense policies of
the United States toward Korea today are increasingly complex in
terms of U.S. national interests versus Korean national
interests in that long divided nation. |
|
New Nukes |
Richard K. Lester, Issues in Science and
Technology. Summer, 2006
View
report
The Bush administration’s plan to use fuel reprocessing as the
spark to revive nuclear power will not succeed. Only centralized
interim waste storage can make a difference in the near term. |
|
House Energy & Water Appropriations FY 2007 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Summary |
Center for Arms Control and
Non-Proliferation, June 6, 2006
View
report
For the 2007 fiscal year, the House increased the funding for
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) program by $41
million, a 38% increase. In addition it acted to stem the
availability of nuclear weapons-usable material by cutting the
Administration’s proposal for commercial spent fuel reprocessing
and transmutation by $130 million, a decrease of 52%, bringing
the funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to
$120 million. |
|
Preliminary Analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy's FY 2007 Nonproliferation
Budget Request |
William Hoehn, RANSAC, February 2007
View
report
This Policy Update provides a preliminary analysis of the
Department of Energy's FY 2007 budget request for global WMD
threat reduction programs. The author observes that although
there are no significant overall changes, there are differences
in fund requests for specific programs. |
|
U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2006 |
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2006
View
report
Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the United States
continues to spend billions of dollars annually to maintain and
upgrade its nuclear forces. As of January 2006, the U.S.
stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes
5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500
non-strategic warheads. |
back to top

This material is produced independently for NTI by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2003 by MIIS.
Error processing SSI file
|
 |