Critical Nuclear Choices For the Second Obama Administration
•
1 j'aime•411 vues
The document discusses five critical nuclear security issues facing the second Obama administration: preventing a nuclear Iran, engagement with North Korea, missile defense cooperation with Russia, redefining the partnership with Pakistan, and maintaining the US nuclear deterrent. On each issue, the document provides background on the challenges and suggests policy priorities, emphasizing diplomacy and cooperation with allies to reduce threats and build confidence.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Plus de American Security Project
Plus de American Security Project (11)
Critical Nuclear Choices For the Second Obama Administration
- 1. CRITICAL NUCLEAR CHOICES FOR THE SECOND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION Five Key Issues the United States Must Face in Nuclear Security
- 2. In Brief: • Nuclear threats did not end with the Cold War. Over the next four years, the Obama administra%on will face cri%cal choices on nuclear security challenges. • The policies the administra%on pursues on Iran, U.S. nuclear strategy, and other issues will have significant consequences for U.S. na%onal security. • PuHng aside par%san rhetoric and working with both sides of the aisle will be key to developing policies that effec%vely address these cri%cal nuclear threats. Long-‐Term Challenges Remain in Five Key Areas: • PrevenDng a Nuclear Iran • North Korea – IsolaDon or Engagement? • Missile Defense and Russia • Redefining a Partnership with Pakistan • The U.S. Nuclear Deterrent Cri%cal Nuclear Choices: Obama’s Second Term
- 3. PrevenDng a The State of Play: Iran’s Nuclear Program • U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran has not yet made Nuclear Iran • the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. However, concerns about Iran’s nuclear program remain, par%cularly over Iran’s con%nued uranium enrichment and past nuclear research at a controversial military facility. • Iran s%ll refuses to address ongoing internaDonal concerns about its past and current nuclear work. SancDons and NegoDaDons • SancDons imposed by the internaDonal community have had an effect on Iran’s economy. • While a long-‐term deal has proved elusive, experts and officials agree that there is sDll Dme to negoDate an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, perhaps star%ng with interim confidence-‐building measures. Ayatollah • Another round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 is Ali Khamenei, expected soon. Supreme Leader of Iran While the military op;on should remain on the table, at this stage the diploma9c route should be pursued.
- 4. North Korea’s Nuclear Program: Engaging North Korea A NaDonal Security Challenge • North Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009 and may have enough fissile material for nine warheads, although North Korea likely lacks the technology to deploy a warhead on a missile. • A third nuclear test, which would increase North Korea’s certainty in its nuclear technology, remains a possibility. • The North Korean nuclear challenge requires a carefully calibrated approach. • The U.S. should maintain Northern denuclearizaDon as the ulDmate goal while consistently working toward accomplishing more modest auxiliary goals such as regional economic coopera%on and academic interac%on. Modest confidence building measures are necessary to establish a framework for engagement.
- 5. Missile Defense In Search of a Breakthrough AND Russia • U.S.-‐Russia rela%ons have taken a downward turn, preven%ng progress on key nuclear security issues. • CooperaDon on missile defense could be the key to breaking through the U.S.-‐Russia stalemate. • The U.S. is planning to deploy missile defense systems in Europe in a four phases, each increasingly capable. • Phase IV, the most advanced, is of par%cular concern to Russia, which insists that the U.S. enter into a legal guarantees that the missile defense shield is not directed at Russia. A Standard Missile 3 Block IB Interceptor • The U.S. consistently maintains that the missile defense shield is directed at the Iranian and North Korean missile threats, not Russia. • Legal guarantees, which could put U.S. na%onal security interests at risk, are not acceptable for the U.S. But a poliDcal agreement may be possible. A poli?cal agreement for U.S.-‐Russia missile defense coopera?on could pave the way for coopera;on on other An SM-‐3 interceptor launched from an important security issues. Aegis-‐class ballis;c missile defense ship
- 6. Pakistan’s Nuclear Program Engaging Pakistan • One of the fastest growing nuclear arsenals, Pakistan is es%mated to have 90 to 110 warheads: • The threat from unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon or nuclear prolifera%on is great – Militants have successfully a^acked suspected Pakistani nuclear facili%es – Tensions with India make the threat of nuclear escala%on unacceptable Points of Emphasis • Encourage Pakistan to adopt the Addi%onal Protocol and produce a formal nuclear strategy, including a no-‐first-‐use policy toward all states • Encourage bilateral trade with India and confidence building measures U.S. policy must be explicit enough to establish clear goals, func?onal enough to allocate necessary resources, and dynamic enough to navigate the conflic?ng regional forces.
- 7. 21st Century Security Challenges U.S. Nuclear Strategy • A_er the Cold War, the U.S. faces very different security challenges, including climate change and • cyberwar. The U.S. nuclear arsenal of over 5,000 warheads is excessive and ineffecDve in addressing 21st century security threats. An Outdated, Expensive Nuclear Strategy • The U.S. is on track to spend about $640 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years. • Unnecessary nuclear programs divert resources from more important defense capabiliDes. • Elimina%ng excess nuclear programs will save billions that can be invested in necessary defense capabili%es. The U.S. is planning to spend over $10 billion to refurbish the B61 nuclear bomb (pictured). About 200 B61s are deployed in Europe today – more than 20 years aQer the end of the Cold War. UpdaDng our nuclear strategy will Credit: Kelly Michals, Flickr strengthen U.S. naDonal security.
- 8. FURTHER READING From the American Security Project CriDcal Nuclear Choices for the Next AdministraDon October 2012. h^p://bit.ly/RaPxhW Significant Iranian SancDons Since 1995 March 2012. h^p://bit.ly/GUsGBk Iran Facts and Figures March 2012. h^p://bit.ly/zbVsmw North Korea’s Nuclear Program August 2012. h^p://bit.ly/Rpwuzx U.S. Missile Defense and European Security June 2012. h^p://bit.ly/Ll65MT Why the U.S. Cannot Ignore Pakistan September 2012. h^p://bit.ly/P3xEk2 A New Approach to Nuclear Weapons LtGen. Dirk Jameson, ASP Consensus member April 2012, h^p://bit.ly/KlYspp Other Resources www.americansecurityproject.org Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Military AcDon Against Iran The Iran Project, September 2012. h^p://bit.ly/Qee0Vf Made by Mary Kaszynski and Mitchell Freddura What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us (Working Paper) Ploughshares Fund, September 2012. h^p://bit.ly/TqMtA7