Dec 17, 2008
What’s on Obama’s plate?
Posted By livableworld

What’s on Obama’s plate?

We’re not talking chicken or fish, we’re talking more like nuclear terrorism and the war in Iraq.

When Obama gets sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, he’ll have more than a full plate of items to deal with, addressing issues like the war in Iraq,  the U.S. and now global economic crisis, global climate change, energy, terrorism, health care, the list – unfortunately – goes on and on, and on.

The Council for a Livable World’s research center has prepared – along with 60 leading national security experts – a transition report on how the Obama administration can effectively address the gravest threat to U.S. security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

The executive summary and full report is available here.

The Council believes that given the rise of terrorist networks and the amount of unsecure nuclear weapons material worldwide, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to U.S. and international security.

“Every presidential candidate since 2000 has said that loose nuclear weapons are the most serious threat to international security. Yet for the past eight years we’ve done very little to address loose nukes seriously,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council and our research Center in a press release today. “What we need now is strong leadership as promised by President-elect Obama during the campaign.”

Besides unsecure nuclear weapons materials, we also have actual weapons to deal with. Almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States continue to maintain about 16,000 nuclear weapons. The arms control process has been stalled since the late 1990s when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected by the Senate.

The experts in the report recommend that Obama Announce intent to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and begin working to build the bipartisan support in the Senate needed for approval.

Basically, the Bush administration was not only was sleeping (though we wish it was only that) on arms control issues, it actually reversed arms control gains made in the past 40 years. When Obama and the 111th Congress gets in office, they’ll have an historic opportunity to provide some real leadership on the most serious component of our national security.

Now you know our priorities, what are yours?

Dec 01, 2008
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference
Posted By Ashley

The media has been all abuzz with the formal announcement that Obama's former favorite foe has been appointed Secretary of State. But, most of that coverage has been focused on  exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, all of which miss the point.

On policy, Obama and Hillary are not night and day, but more like 4:30 and 4:45.  

“When it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. To paraphrase the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Isaacs added: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.”

Isaacs based his assessment on a thorough examination of Obama and Clinton’s Senate voting records; national security platforms as laid out in articles and op-eds; and responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires.

Isaac's analysis compares and contrasts their policy positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and other relevant foreign policy issues. Read his full analysis here.

Dec 01, 2008
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Posted By Ashley

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization just published an op-ed co-authored with former congressional Rep. Tom Andrews. With all the media attention that the Hillary as Secretary of State has been receiving, Tom and Gen. Gard take us back to what really matters, the policy.

It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!

by Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) and Tom Andrews

The media obsession over who's in and who's out of consideration for the Obama Cabinet brings the admonition on the famous "War Room" wall of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign to mind: "It's the Economy Stupid!" Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"

President Obama will begin his presidency with enormous good will from the American people and great hope from the world at large. It is imperative that he seize this opportunity by quickly moving his campaign pledges into bold and decisive action despite the opposition that surely awaits him.

Nov 20, 2008
Our Biggest Threat?
Posted By Ashley

In 2004, both Bush and Kerry called it the gravest threat facing the United States. This year on the campaign trail, President-elect Obama and Sen. McCain voiced their serious concerns on the issue of nuclear terrorism.

Our research Center recently produced a policy brief: "Understanding and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism."

Here's a few key excerpts:

Since the creation of the atomic bomb, government officials, scientists, and concerned citizens have been aware that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of dangerous terrorist groups or rogue regimes. The rise of Al Qaeda and the events of September 11, however, brought the threat of nuclear terrorism into a whole new light for the United States. Suddenly, the detonation of a crude nuclear device in a major American metropolitan area no longer seemed like something out of a science fiction movie. Indeed, as President-Elect Barack Obama said during the 2008 presidential campaign, nuclear terrorism is “the gravest danger we face.”

[snip]

It is not the odds but the consequences of such an attack that propel nuclear terrorism to the top of the U.S. national security agenda. A March 2003 report by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom found that if a ten-kiloton nuclear weapon, approximately the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, were detonated at Manhattan’s Grand Central Station in New York, it would instantly kill over 500,000 people, injure hundreds of thousands, and cause over $1 trillion in direct damages.

[snip]

If the United States and countries around the world are serious about preventing a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, efforts to contain the threat at its source need serious attention. According to the Partnership for a Secure America, the biggest problem is the lack of coordination on counter-nuclear terrorism efforts across federal agencies. Congress tried to remedy this shortcoming in 2007 with H.R. 1, the 9/11 Commission Act, which created a White House Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to ignore the law and never filled the position. Failures in coordination are similarly reflected at the international level, where bilateral and multilateral engagement to prevent nuclear terrorism is equally fragmented.

Read the full report here.

Nov 10, 2008
European Missile Defense is a Loser
Posted By Travis

Katie Mounts and I published this article through MinutemanMedia.org a few weeks ago. Enjoy!

European Missile Defense is a Loser
By Katie Mounts and Travis Sharp
October 15, 2008

The Bush administration has tried for years to build support for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. White House officials claim that the system will protect America’s allies from an Iranian missile attack. Unfortunately, the proposed system is plagued with budgetary, technical, and political problems, and actually poses serious risks to American security.

The Pentagon organization responsible for missile defense, the Missile Defense Agency, estimates the European system will cost $4 billion over the next five years. There is reason to suspect that this estimate is grossly underestimated, however, due to the Agency’s method of building weapons.

This method is known as “spiral development,” a process where development and production unfold simultaneously. It is equivalent to Ford or Chevrolet assembling a new car and letting people drive it around town without first completing engineering blueprints or testing the design. This haphazard approach inevitably results in multiple changes during production. Each time the Pentagon goes back to the drawing board, it costs American taxpayers millions of dollars.

Nov 04, 2008
VOTE
Posted By Ashley

'nuff said.

Oct 17, 2008
Don’t be fooled by calls for new nukes
Posted By Travis

I just posted this new commentary by Executive Director John Isaacs on our sister organization's website. The text is below.

Don’t Be Fooled By Calls for New Nukes
By John Isaacs
October 17, 2008

Over the past several months, a handful of conservative security analysts have begun to argue for upgrading the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. These arguments typically call for bolstering America’s “nuclear deterrent,” which of course is a euphemism for building more new nuclear weapons.

A representative example came in the July 14 issue of Defense News in a commentary by David Trachtenberg titled “Death Knell for Nuclear Deterrence.”

Trachtenberg, a consultant and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, writes that the United States currently has a “faith-based” nuclear deterrent. What he credits to faith, however, he should instead credit to facts and science.

The United States has more than 4,000 deployed nuclear weapons and more than 1,200 in reserve. Almost all of these most destructive weapons ever built are larger than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 60 years ago. To all but those who are wearing blinders, this nuclear force packs a world-destructive wallop and is many times larger than the nuclear forces of all countries except Russia.

Trachtenberg uses terms like “aging” and “cold war relics.” The question is not the age of the weapons but whether they work and whether they can do the job that has been assigned to them. Each year, the Departments of Defense and Energy have certified that our nuclear weapons stockpile still works quite capably.

Moreover, a 2006 study conducted by U.S. national weapons laboratories and reviewed by JASON, a widely respected independent government advisory group, found that the plutonium cores of the current nuclear stockpile are, and will continue to be, reliable at least for the next 40 to 50 years.

Trachtenberg asserts that the smaller stockpile of nuclear weapons that the United States maintains will heighten the “appetite of rogue states and terrorist groups” to gain their own weapons. He apparently does not understand politics or history. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have been seeking nuclear weapons regardless of what the United States does. Why? Because if a terrorist group explodes a nuclear weapon on an American city, the U.S. nuclear response is irrelevant and we will have no one on which to retaliate.

The North Koreans and the Iranians have moved toward nuclear weapons programs not because of any U.S. reductions, but more likely because they learned the lesson of Iraq in 2003: The United States will attack non-nuclear countries but not those with nuclear weapons.

The goal of sharply reducing the supply of nuclear weapons and materials is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states. We don’t need to build new nuclear weapons or to modernize our nuclear weapons to remain the strongest power in the world.

Oct 17, 2008
Kissinger and Schultz on "Strength with Diplomacy"
Posted By John Isaacs

There is no doubt the relationship between the United States and Russia has been strained of late. Recent events like the Russia-Georgia crisis, the proposed third missile defense site in Europe, and the independence of Kosovo have pitted the two countries against each other at a time when cooperative action – on terrorism, Iran, energy, and nuclear proliferation – is needed most.

Former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz recently wrote an op-ed in which they argue against a policy that further isolates Russia and propose steps for a constructive U.S.-Russia relationship.

The two experts explain that Russian military action and brash rhetoric against Georgia sent shockwaves throughout that region – and around the world. The U.S. response, to isolate and chastise, however, is a "drift toward confrontation" and is "not a sustainable long-range policy," as Russia is imtimately tied to  Europe,  Asia, and the volatile Middle East, and has a nuclear stockpile comparable to our own.

Kissinger and Schultz suggest that Russia's recent actions are a result of a series of miscalculations, a desire for acceptance as an equal in the international community, and a somewhat defensive historical and psychological perspective.

Rather than pursue a policy of isolation, the authors – echoing Ronald Reagan's 1983 approach after the Soviets shot down a Korean airplane – recommend a consistent approach of "strength and diplomacy." Many members of Congress, who agree that the U.S. response to Russia must be measured and balanced to prevent future conflict, have also expressed that sentiment.  Senator Hillary Clinton and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, among others, have stressed the importance of continued U.S.-Russian dialogue.      

Kissinger and Shultz point out that the immediate crisis involving Georgia should not overshadow the many national security interests shared by the two countries. The Sochi document – a cooperative strategy outlined by President Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin in April 2008 – provides an effective roadmap for addressing those challenges. This roadmap, combined with an approach of "strength and diplomacy," they maintain, provides the most constructive opportunity for both nations to confront issues from terrorism and Iran, to nuclear proliferation and energy.

Sep 30, 2008
In debate, jabs fly as Obama talks loose nukes
Posted By livableworld

With Sen. John McCain perceived as having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in voter confidence on foreign policy issues, Obama showed confident poise in his positions during the first presidential debate last Friday.

The first 40 minutes focused on the candidates’ approaches to fixing the American economy due to the ongoing market crisis. Obama focused on closing corporate tax loopholes, combating greed and corruption on Wall Street, and implementing tax cuts for the middle class. McCain chastised earmark spending increases as the source of America’s economic woes.

As the debate switched to foreign policy, McCain repeatedly asserted that Obama “does not understand” the challenges the United States faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain claimed that Obama’s support for direct talks with rogue nations would legitimize those regimes that want to cause the United States harm. Obama was quick to respond, highlighting that treating those we disagree with contemptuously only emboldens their motives. He used Iran and North Korea as examples.

On the issue of Iraq, Obama was quick to point out that he was correct in his judgment that Iraq was an unnecessary war and that the real central front in the war on terror is in Afghanistan, a conflict McCain has treated dismissively. McCain countered by stating that “The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not.” The squabbling between the two candidates on this issue highlighted the ‘judgment vs. experience’ debate that has been a theme of the race for months.    

One of the highlights of the first debate was when Obama expressed his dedication and desire for urgent action to secure loose nuclear weapons and strengthen other non-proliferation measures. As he previously outlined in response to questions from Council for a Livable World, Obama said that the issue of non-proliferation is important because “The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” Obama has pledged to work extensively with other nations - including Russia, despite its recent aggressive actions in Georgia - to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials.  

The next presidential debate, in a town-hall format, is on Oct. 7th at Belmont University in Nashville. Prior to this debate will be the highly anticipated vice-presidential debate this Thursday, Oct. 2, at Washington University in St. Louis.  Many are looking to see if Gov. Sarah Palin can perform in an unscripted national debate against the unpredictable, knowledgeable, and always charismatic Sen. Joe Biden.  

Sep 23, 2008
McCain and Obama Seek 1st Round Knock-Out
Posted By livableworld

The first of three presidential debates will occur this Friday, September 26. In a prime time encounter, John McCain and Barack Obama will (hopefully) lay out their ideas about how to best structure and implement U.S. foreign policy over the next four years. These debates will be critical for the candidates, as the race is tightly contested and neither candidate has pulled away in recent polls.