“Virtual deterrence” — demobilizing nuclear weapons but retaining production capacity — could backfire on the disarmament advocates who think it’s a step in the right direction and lead to nuclear war.
The United States is fighting another war–of unknown scope and length–in Libya. At a time of budget-cutting fever on Capitol Hill, the war represents a potential lifeline for the Pentagon. If you believe the Libya operation justifies current U.S. military spending levels–or even an increase–think again.
Severing the ties that bind disarmament and nonproliferation is not only bad policy, it’s an offense against common sense.
Nuclear miscellany.
A computer virus might seem like the perfect way to stop Iran’s nuclear program. But it’s as liable to side effects as any weapon.
Nonproliferation is a non-starter when those who seek to enforce it refuse to convincingly disarm.
Ratification is like the starter’s gun — but is the finish line disarmament or a nuclear-industrial complex more deeply entrenched than ever?
Heretofore coexisting peacefully, the two are now juxtaposed.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have a meeting scheduled in Delhi on November 8. Certain to be on the agenda is the removal of the last remaining export controls on U.S. dual-use technology and military hardware to India, including technology appropriate for development of space weapons. Since President Obama pledged in 2009 to seek a ban on space weapons, the United States should not be helping other countries develop these weapons. But with the final hurdles of export control removed, Washington could be doing just that for India.
The New START treaty should at best be called an “arms affirmation treaty,” confirming that expensive weapons systems, which include the nation’s nuclear arsenal, remain a national priority. Like the earlier Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, New START insulates nuclear weapons spending, as well as large budgets for other weapons systems.