US Policy Changes Vol.57 (National Security Vol.4 – nuclear ideas)

Here is a report: 10 Big Nuclear Ideas (PDF; Nov 2016) | @TomCollina & @GeoffTWilson @plough_shares. Excerpt is on our own.

@SenMarkey – Reduce, Reform, and Restrain: a Nuclear Agenda for the 21st Century
The diverse perspectives in this report are united around a common vision, one that Ploughshares Fund has embodied and promoted with exceptional clarity — if we want future generations to inherit a safer world, we must end our misguided approach to nuclear armament.
If we want other countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and restrain their nuclear war plans, the United States must take the lead.

@TomCollina – Big Ideas for Big Challenges
Nuclear weapons are still vastly overvalued in U.S. defense policy, with missions they cannot achieve and budgets they do not deserve.

@ValeriePlame – Break with Cold War Thinking
Dear 45th President, welcome to the White House. You now have an opportunity to make a lasting impact on national and international policy. But whatever your priorities may be — national security, education, immigration, the deficit or the environment — one issue can trump them all: nuclear weapons. Unless you make a definitive break with Cold War thinking, you may undermine everything else you and so many others are striving to accomplish.

@Gen_Jcartwright – Reduce the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal, with or without Russia
Speaking in Berlin in 2013, President Barack Obama offered to reduce U.S. deployed strategic nuclear forces to about 1,000 warheads, or one-third below the limits of the 2010 New START Treaty. This is sound policy, as the U.S. military has determined that it can ensure the security of the United States and its allies at this lower level. But the president made the offer contingent on gaining agreement from Russia to follow suit. Moscow balked, and no agreement was reached.

@SecDef19 – Phase Out America’s ICBMs
Russia and the United States have started rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting us on the threshold of a new and dangerous arms race. But we don’t have to replay this drama. The U.S. plan to rebuild and maintain its nuclear force is needlessly oversized and expensive, expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This will crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge of our conventional forces, and to build the capabilities needed to deal with terrorism and cyber attacks.
As we learned the hard way, there is only one way to win an arms race. Refuse to run.

@SenFeinstein and @RepAdamSmith – Cancel the New Nuclear Cruise Missile
The Defense Department has proposed to build a new, powerful nuclear cruise missile called the Long-Range Standoff weapon (LRSO). In our opinion, this weapon is unnecessary, incredibly expensive and would move the United States closer to actually using a nuclear weapon — an unthinkable action.

@KennetteBene – Add Democracy to Nuclear Policy
The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign has, among other things, reminded the public that the president has the sole authority to launch a nuclear attack. While public discussion focused on the temperament, judgment and character of the person occupying the office of the presidency, it has also raised the larger question about the democratic legitimacy of a single person being able to launch a nuclear war. As William Broad and David Sanger of The New York Times put it, “is there any check on a president’s power to launch nuclear arms that could destroy entire cities or nations?” Their answer is no, not really.
When it comes to nuclear weapons then, the conduct of war lies wholly outside the social contract between citizens and their government.

Steve Andreasen (@NTI_WMD) and @isabelle_nti – Bring Home U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons from Europe
In the United States, anything nuclear is inherently presidential. Any change in nuclear policy requires presidential leadership and sustained engagement. Moreover, decisions to pursue new initiatives must be made early in a new administration, and then executed over a number of years. Coming late to the nuclear policy party — or just stopping by — is usually a recipe for frustration and inaction.

@TyttiE – Press Pause on Missile Defense in Europe
The Iran nuclear accord, concluded in July 2015, has fundamentally improved the outlook for European security. Iran is now much less likely to obtain nuclear warheads, and its missile programs are proceeding more slowly than expected. As a result, current U.S. plans to build additional interceptor missiles in Poland should be placed on hold.

@suzannedimaggio – Learn from Iran, Engage North Korea
Since official relations between Washington and Tehran were severed in 1980, five American presidents spanning a period of three decades — from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush — have struggled to figure out how to deal with Iran. As a candidate for the presidency in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama indicated that if elected he would take a different approach from his predecessors and “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran. “For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Principled and pragmatic diplomacy in the absence of trust is hard, but it’s not impossible.

@frankvonhippel – Ban Production of Highly Enriched Uranium
The continued production of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for any purpose poses a significant threat to international security. Nations that want to acquire nuclear weapons could seek to do so under the cover of HEU production for civilian research or naval propulsion. While it is essential to strengthen ongoing efforts to secure existing stocks, the next U.S. administration also should make it a priority to ban the production of HEU worldwide. Such a ban would greatly reduce the risks of nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states.

@BeaFihn – Support a Global Ban on Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapons continue to be one of the most serious threats to international peace and security around the world. They are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Both in the scale of the devastation they cause, and in their uniquely persistent and hazardous radioactive fallout, they are unlike any other weapons. A single nuclear bomb detonated over a large city could kill millions of people. The use of tens or hundreds of nuclear bombs would disrupt the Earth’s climate worldwide and cause widespread famine.