Nuclear summit a test for Obama's legacy

Jeff Tollefson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19654

IF: 64.8

2016-03-30

Nature

Abstract:US president pushed world to secure radioactive materials, but the threat of nuclear warfare — and terrorism — remains.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Nuclear Terrorism and the Obama Administration's Nuclear Strategy

Jiang Zhenfei

2011-01-01

Abstract:With changes in the international nuclear security environment and increased recognition of the threat presented by nuclear terrorism,in order to enhance America's nuclear arms control institutions and its strategic need for discursive hegemony in this area,to intervene in the domestic politics of other states and to better serve the global and regional strategic needs of the US,the Obama Administration has given anti-nuclear terrorism policy a higher place vis-à-vis America's nuclear strategy.However,given the narrow nature of how this policy serves America's arms control policy and its discursive hegemony,the following shortcoming are inevitable: the cause and effect relationship is reversed in the Obama administration's anti-nuclear terrorism policy;the objectives of the Obama Administration's anti-nuclear terrorism policy are misguided to an extent;there are internal inconsistencies in the American nuclear policy.Precisely because of these shortcomings,the anti-nuclear terrorism policy of the Obama Administration inevitably impacts international anti-nuclear terrorism efforts in more than one way.
On Obama Administration's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies

Jiang Zhenfei

2009-01-01

Abstract:After United States President Barack Obama came into office,US nuclear nonproliferation policies underwent radical transformations. These shifts are in part due to the review by Obama's administration on the nuclear nonproliferation policies of its predecessor,and in part owing to the efforts at improving the US international image and the strategic need to safeguard US leadership in world affairs. Most importantly,however,it is deemed a means to exert more pressures on North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. Obama's changes to US nuclear nonproliferation policies are indeed helpful at putting international nuclear arms control efforts back on track. To China,US's new policy direction will bring forth multiple effects-both positive as well as negative ones. Sino-US cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation will be carried over from the Bush era,while China will benefit from the overall improvement in international security environment;however,China will need to be wary of the possible constrains to its rise,threats to its "minimal deterrence" nuclear capacity,a marginalization of its role in the Six-party Talks,as well as the uncertainties that Obama's new nuclear nonproliferation initiatives can effect on regional stability so essential to China's peaceful development.
Korean Nuclear Crises: Is There A Way Forward?

Muzaffar Ganaie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.12630065.v1

2020-07-09

Abstract:North Korea’s nuclear programme remains a key foreign policy challenge for United States. After its first nuclear test in 2006, Pyongyang has made an impressive progress in developing a credible nuclear deterrent through series of nuclear and missile tests. The diplomatic efforts to dissuade North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have not yielded positive results so far, as Pyongyang has not only developed a credible deterrent but continues to expand and strengthen it. The failure of Hanoi Summit, latest in the series of diplomatic initiatives to end the series has depended pessimism regarding future negations. Experts are skeptical about finding a diplomatic solution to the crises and the demand to explore other alternatives _____ limited surgical strike, regime change, treating North Korea as de-facto nuclear weapon state _____ to end the crises has intensified in recent years. However, dealing with the threat though these tools is highly risky and diplomatic outreach is the most preferred course to end the crises.
America's Anti-Nuclear Terrorism Policies since 9/11

Gong Honglie

2006-01-01

Abstract:This article analyses American policies on how to prevent nuclear terrorism and holds that the Bush administration had made some progress in this respect,but failed to construct a coherent policy framework in preventing nuclear terrorism.From preemptive strategy to counter-proliferation and homeland security policy, the Bush administration made many mistakes and the policy failure is mainly due to errors in the strategy.
Reducing nuclear dangers

Matthew Bunn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr0532

IF: 56.9

2024-06-21

Science

Abstract:Dark clouds loom on the nuclear horizon, with threats from all directions: Russia's nuclear bombast in its war on Ukraine, China's construction of hundreds of nuclear missile silos, North Korea's missile testing, India and Pakistan's ongoing nuclear competition, and Iran's push toward nuclear weapons capability. In response, US policy-makers are discussing whether a further American nuclear arms buildup is needed. At the same time, evolving technologies, from hypersonic missiles to artificial intelligence, are straining military balances and may be making them more unstable. The risk of nuclear war has not been so high since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

multidisciplinary sciences
The US Nuclear War Plan:Continuity and Changes in the New Century

Zhang Yang,Liu Yue

2011-01-01

Abstract:Since the early Cold War,the American military has maintained and developed a comprehensive nuclear war plan.That plan,the Single Integrated Operational Plan(SIOP)was seriously criticized for its gross demonstration of overkill due to its single targeting objective.Furthermore,it could not adjust to the new national security threats facing the United States in the post-Cold War period.After September 11,SIOP was renamed "OPLAN 8044" by the Bush administration and revised to "OPLAN 8010-08" at the end of his administration,which named Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike.This historical development of the US strategic war plan demonstrates the great changes in the US nuclear employment policy,still in process.The Obama administration's nuclear employment policy could be understood as the continuity of the US strategic war plan.This paper posits that the Obama administration,given the nuclear capability of Russia and China,might strengthen the arms control negotiation with these countries,but will not unilaterally abandon the strategic deterrence role in its new war plan.Moreover,although the Obama administration may gradually limit the role of nuclear weapons in the US war plan,the uncertainty of nuclear employment still exists and the plan's targeting objectives may even expand.
The Evolution of U.S.Nuclear Force Development Policy in the New Century

Jiang Zhenfei,Jiang Heng

2013-01-01

Abstract:After the turn of the century,the Bush administration focused onstrengthening the "hardware" of nuclear forces in order to support its "preemptive" counter-proliferation strategy.The succeeding Obama administration has attempted to maintain the U.S.nuclear superiority with an eye to the future development of its nuclear forces.The impetus for Obama's adjustments includs the change of nuclear security environment,the shift of focus of U.S.nuclear strategy,the impact of the revolution in military affairs,and the important role of "Instant Global Strike System" in U.S.national security strategy.In the future the Obama administration will likely press ahead with strengthening nuclear infrastructure and human resources,but the possibility of the U.S.taking measures to upgrade its nuclear arsenal cannot be ruled out.
Negotiations On The Denuclearisation Of North Korea: A Critical Evaluation Of Summit Diplomacy

Edward Kwon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2022.2076473

2022-06-07

Asian Affairs

Abstract:This article analyzes a series of summit diplomacy efforts by the former United States President Donald Trump, and South Korea's President Moon Jae-in, to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to give up the country's nuclear weapons program. Through critical evaluation of the summits between Trump and Kim as well as Moon and Kim, the paper provides several important lessons on how to deal with North Korea. Kim Jong Un's mindset and strategic calculation of a denuclearization deal with Trump, amid the recent progress of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs programs, are investigated. Given the failure to reach a denuclearization agreement at the Hanoi Summit, Pyongyang is not expected readily to give up its nuclear weapons. North Korea had temporarily refrained from severe military provocations, such as test-firing ICBMs or conducting another round of nuclear weapon experiments by self-moratorium since April 2018. However, Pyongyang reversed direction with this policy in 2022 and resumed coercive diplomacy in order to achieve its desired goals. As North Korea's incessant efforts to advance its nuclear weapons and ICBMs programs brings with a dismal outlook for peace building both on the Korean Peninsula and the world, this paper investigates a series of policy lessons to manage the North Korean nuclear crisis.
The United States, the Israeli Nuclear Program, and Nonproliferation, 1961–69

Galen Jackson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2019.1551570

2019-01-07

Security Studies

Abstract:As was evident from the intense reaction to Donald Trump’s comments during the 2016 presidential campaign about nuclear proliferation, many analysts believe that the United States has consistently given the goal of nonproliferation a top priority since the beginning of the nuclear age. That conviction, in turn, plays a major role in policy debates among experts in this area. In this article, I show that nonproliferation does not necessarily take precedence over other important US geopolitical interests through a close examination of American policy toward the Israeli nuclear program during the 1960s. Although nonproliferation goals certainly came into play, US officials repeatedly gave priority to other key objectives and, to a real extent, even believed that Israel’s nuclearization could hold certain strategic advantages. This finding, of course, has important theoretical implications for the basic question of whether international politics still works essentially as it did in the pre-nuclear era, as well as for policy debates over nuclear proliferation.

international relations
US takes another look at recycling nuclear fuel

David Kramer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.mrdf.volt

IF: 3.5

2024-02-01

Physics Today

Abstract:Proponents see a reduction in the need for uranium mining and more efficient, cheaper reactors. Opponents see a risk of proliferation.

physics, multidisciplinary
Status and Outlook for Nuclear Energy in the United States

M. S. Fertel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.22.1-2.25

2011-02-01

Abstract:The US nuclear power industry is performing well, uprating many of its 104 existing plants and planning for new capacity. Production cost is low and licence extensions promise 60-year operating lives for present plants. However, the Obama administration has derailed plans for a waste repository in Nevada, and the matter has been referred to a high-level commission which is fully reviewing waste management, including the question of closing the fuel cycle in USA. Meanwhile four new enrichment projects are moving ahead, uranium mining is reviving, and the industry is in good shape to cope with likely high uranium prices. Several factors converge to support the prospect of building as many as 20 new power reactors in the next two decades. The next generation of nuclear plants will benefit from an improved licensing process, which was completely overhauled in 1992. The new nuclear power projects will employ advanced versions of the light water reactor technology used in the 104 operating plants. Small reactors including high-temperature gas-cooled designs and fast neutron reactors are on the drawing boards. Financing new plants will require up to $2 trillion by 2030, but some stimulus, including loan guarantees, is provided by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Both Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that substantial increases in nuclear generating capacity will be essential to meet carbon reduction goals. A substantial majority of Americans support the use of nuclear energy now, and nearly 90 percent said they view nuclear energy as important in the future.

Environmental Science,Physics,Engineering
Obama Administration and the Prospect of Six-Party Talks

LIANG Yun-xiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-7411.2009.02.001

2009-01-01

Abstract:The U.S.presidential election announced the step down of the Republican Administration and the step up of the Democratic Administration leading by Barack Obama.The elementary policies of Obama Administration mainly focus on economy,Iraq War and anti-terrorism.With reference to its foreign policy,the new Administration will change the unilateralism of Bush Administration to multilateral and bilateral cooperation.As for the Korean Peninsular nuclear issue and Six-party talks,U.S.still has more initiative compared with North Korea and China.Obama will succeed Bush's policy on this issue to talk inside the existing framework.To some extent,he will be even more active to cooperate with America's alliance and also China so as to deal with international and domestic problems.He also hopes that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons peacefully under the pressure of international society.There is no doubt that the denuclearization of Korean Peninsular and non-proliferation of nuclear weapon are still the essential interests of America so that in principle Obama hasn't promised to abandon the use of force.Additionally,there still exists ideological opposition between America and North Korea as well as China.However,the difference in ideology won't affect the flexibility and pragmatism of Obama Administration's foreign policy.Only when there happened some emergent issue,U.S.is very unlikely to use the force.In a word,the policy of U.S.will help to ease the tension on the nuclear issue and exercise the influence of Six-party talks.It's possible that U.S.will talk with North Korea directly and bilaterally.Nevertheless,they won't give up the mechanism of Six-party talks and they will embed the bilateral talk into the Six-party talks or using this framework as diplomatic home-front.In order to pursue a breakthrough on the nuclear issue,U.S.will put more emphasis on bilateral talk with North Korea.However,with concerns of the U.S.-Sino and U.S.-Russia strategic relationship,considering the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-South Korea relationship,Obama Administration will make use of the Six-party talks in the long run.
Nuclear Deterrence, Strategic Stability, Missile Defense

Alexander G. Saveliev,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-5-20-34

2023-01-01

Rossiya v globalnoi politike

Abstract:Some nuclear-free states believe that only the possession of nuclear weapons ensures real security. In reality, the choice is between solving the security problem by political means and following the path of North Korea, with all the ensuing consequences.
Oppenheimer lessons

Robert P Crease

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/37/01/21

2024-01-01

Physics World

Abstract:US authorities celebrated Robert Oppenheimer for developing atomic weapons but sidelined him when he wanted to advise them on their use. It’s an episode that has many lessons for us today, says Robert P Crease.

physics, multidisciplinary
On the Brink: The Climate and Nature Crisis and Risks of Nuclear War

José Florencio Lapeña

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v38i2.2225

2023-11-20

Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract:The Russian military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and Hamas’ terror attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, signaled the beginning of two of the most recent wars to make international headlines. To date, over 110 armed conflicts are taking place: over 45 in the Middle East and North Africa (Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Western Sahara); over 35 in Africa (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan); 21 in Asia (Afghanistan, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines); seven in Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan); and six in Latin America (three each in Mexico and Colombia); with two more international armed conflicts (between India and Pakistan, and between India and China) in Asia.1 This list does not even include such problematic situations as those involving China and the South East Asia region. As though these situations of armed violence were not enough, mankind has already passed or is on the verge of passing several climate tipping points – a recent review lists nine Global core tipping elements (and their tipping points) - the Greenland Ice Sheet (collapse); West Antarctic Ice Sheet (collapse); Labrador-Irminger Seas / SPG Convection (collapse); East Antarctic Subglacial Basins (collapse); Amazon Rainforest (dieback); Boreal Permafrost (collapse); Atlantic M.O. Circulation (collapse); Arctic Winter Sea Ice (collapse); and East Antarctic Ice Sheet (collapse); and seven Regional impact tipping elements (and their tipping points) – Low-latitude Coral Reefs (die-off); Boreal Permafrost (abrupt thaw); Barents Sea Ice (abrupt loss); Mountain Glaciers (loss); Sahel and W. African Monsoon (greening); Boreal Forest (southern dieback); and Boreal Forest (northern expansion).2 Closer to home, how can we forget the disaster and devastation wrought by Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) 10 years ago to date? Whether international or non-international, armed conflicts raise the risk of nuclear war. Russia has already “rehearsed its ability to deliver a ‘massive’ nuclear strike,” conducting “practical launches of ballistic and cruise missiles,” and stationed a first batch of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus,3 and the possibility of nuclear escalation in Ukraine cannot be overestimated.4 Meanwhile, in a rare public announcement, the U.S. Central Command revealed that an Ohio- class submarine (560 feet long, 18,750 tons submerged and carrying as many as 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles) had arrived in the Middle East on November 5, 2023.5 Indeed, “the danger is great and growing,” as “any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity.”6
Nuclear Power An Optimistic Beginning, A Clouded Future

Michael B. McElroy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190490331.003.0013

2016-01-01

Abstract:Nuclear power was widely regarded as the Holy Grail for energy supply when first introduced into the US electricity market in the late 1950s and early 1960s— power so cheap that utilities could scarcely afford the cost of the meters needed to monitor its consumption and charge for its use. The first civilian reactor, with a capacity to produce 60 MW of electricity (MWe), went into service in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in late 1957. By the end of 1974, 55 reactors were in operation in the United States with a combined capacity of about 32 GWe. The largest individual power plant had a capacity of 1.25 GWe: the capacity of reactors constructed since 1970 averaged more than 1 GWe. The industry then went into a state of suspended animation. A series of highly publi¬cized accidents was responsible for this precipitous change in the fortunes of the industry. Only 13 reactors were ordered in the United States after 1975, and all of these orders were subsequently cancelled. Public support for nuclear power effectively disappeared in the United States following events that unfolded at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979. It suffered a further setback, not only in the United States but also worldwide, in the wake of the disaster that struck at the Chernobyl nuclear facility in the Ukraine on April 26, 1986. The most recent confidence- sapping development occurred in Japan, at the Fukushima- Daiichi nuclear complex. Floodwaters raised by a tsunami triggered by a major offshore earthquake resulted in a series of self- reinforcing problems in March 2011, culminating in a highly publicized release of radioactivity to the environment that forced the evacuation of more than 300,000 people from the surrounding communities If not a death blow, this most recent accident certainly clouded prospects for the future of nuclear power, not only in Japan but also in many other parts of the world. Notably, Germany elected to close down its nuclear facilities, leading to increased dependence on coal to meet its demand for electricity, seriously complicating its objective to markedly reduce the nation’s overall emissions of CO2.
The United States and Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program, 1961–1973

Jeffrey W. Taliaferro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190939304.003.0003

2019-09-13

Abstract:Chapter 3 posits that the overriding objective of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations was to avoid containment failure in the Middle East. Thwarting the Israeli nuclear weapons program was a secondary objective. As Soviet arms sales to Egypt and Syria accelerated in the mid-1960s, the regional power distribution became unfavorable and the time horizons of threats to US interests grew shorter. The Johnson administration abandoned Kennedy’s demands for inspections of the Dimona reactor and instead sold M-48 tanks, A-4 Skyhawks, and later F-12 Phantoms to bolster Israel’s defenses. Congress, however, made it difficult for the Johnson and the Nixon administrations to link arms transfers to Israeli concessions on the nuclear issue. Chapter 3 examines the evolution of the US-Israeli strategic relationship against the backdrop of the Cold War from Kennedy’s demands for inspections in 1961 through the October 1973 Middle East War.
An Analysis of Obama's Policy of Nuclear Intimidation

JIANG Zhen-fei,CHENG Jin-yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6051.2012.02.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:Since the American president Obama took office,great changes in nuclear intimidation have been taken,which mainly lie in the differences between retaliatory deterrence and rejecting deterrence:to reduce the status of retaliatory deterrence in national security,meanwhile to enhance the role of rejecting deterrence.The specific measures include:to reduce the weapon number of retaliatory deterrence,to reduce the role of retaliatory deterrence in national security,to develop the rejecting deterrence competence——Conventional Prompt Global Strikes.
A civil super-Manhattan project in nuclear research for a safer and prosperous world

D. Sornette

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.06985

2015-04-27

Abstract:Humankind is confronted with a "nuclear stewardship curse", facing the prospect of needing to manage nuclear products over long time scales in the face of the short-time scales of human polities. I propose a super Manhattan-type effort to rejuvenate the nuclear energy industry to overcome the current dead-end in which it finds itself, and by force, humankind has trapped itself in. A 1% GDP investment over a decade in the main nuclear countries could boost economic growth with a focus on the real world, epitomised by nuclear physics/chemistry/engineering/economics with well defined targets. By investing vigorously to obtain scientific and technological breakthroughs, we can create the spring of a world economic rebound based on new ways of exploiting nuclear energy, both more safely and more durably.

Physics and Society
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century

Dingli Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475179052000345467

2005-01-01

Defense and Security Analysis

Abstract:The purpose behind this section is to encourage, and sometimes solicit, short commentary and/or comment on timely topics that play a role in shaping current national and international defense and security policies. There is no limit or constraint on what defense and security topics are chosen, so long as they are timely and have policy relevance. By way of guidance, the nearest equivalent would be feature articles in the more reputable broadsheet press.

Nuclear summit a test for Obama's legacy

Nuclear Terrorism and the Obama Administration's Nuclear Strategy

On Obama Administration's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies

Korean Nuclear Crises: Is There A Way Forward?

America's Anti-Nuclear Terrorism Policies since 9/11

Reducing nuclear dangers

The US Nuclear War Plan:Continuity and Changes in the New Century

The Evolution of U.S.Nuclear Force Development Policy in the New Century

Negotiations On The Denuclearisation Of North Korea: A Critical Evaluation Of Summit Diplomacy

The United States, the Israeli Nuclear Program, and Nonproliferation, 1961–69

US takes another look at recycling nuclear fuel

Status and Outlook for Nuclear Energy in the United States

Obama Administration and the Prospect of Six-Party Talks

Nuclear Deterrence, Strategic Stability, Missile Defense

Oppenheimer lessons

On the Brink: The Climate and Nature Crisis and Risks of Nuclear War

Nuclear Power An Optimistic Beginning, A Clouded Future

The United States and Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program, 1961–1973

An Analysis of Obama's Policy of Nuclear Intimidation

A civil super-Manhattan project in nuclear research for a safer and prosperous world

Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century