Word: kristensen
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...nuclear war if they don't. In an interview before the NPR's release, Obama said that, in a change from the past, the U.S. would no longer threaten nuclear war in retaliation for a biological- or chemical-weapons attack. But look closely at the text, says Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, which monitors nuclear weapons policies, and you'll see that's not quite true. For instance, the document states that there "remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional, chemical or biological attack...
...Despite the political limits, even modest informal arrangements and other confidence-building measures "would help facilitate progress in future, formal nuclear talks," says Steve Andreasen, a former director for arms control on the National Security Council and now a lecturer at the University of Minnesota. But, along with Kristensen, Andreasen points out that verification procedures are crucial to the success of any significant cuts to nuclear arsenals - and those procedures must be agreed on by both countries in advance. The greatest obstacle to the arms-control progress may be convincing decision makers on both sides that banishing the ghosts...
...START reintroduced nuclear parity as a central element of U.S. and Russian strategic relations," says Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. "Both countries have to be careful that it doesn't lock them into strategic postures that are too dependent on the other side...
...Unilateralism was once seen by defense experts as naive pacifism. But Kristensen notes that the U.S. was unilaterally cutting back its nuclear deployments throughout the Bush Administration's tenure. The U.S. Air Force removed half of its tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe between 2000 and 2009 without any reciprocal action required of Russia. The U.S. also voluntarily reduced its deployed strategic weapons below a 2002 treaty limit 3½ years before it was required to do so. "There are plenty of other ripe apples to pluck," he says. "The U.S. could probably go to 500 weapons tomorrow without...
...down from the 2,200 of the previous treaty, which is still more than enough to wipe each other off the map. But in the Strangelovean world of nuclear deterrence, the slightest threat to parity is a cause for major problems. Early on in the START negotiations last summer, Kristensen says, the Russians balked at a provision that would allow the U.S. to inspect the production facilities of its new RS-24 ICBM because they would not be able to inspect American ICBM construction sites. Kristensen says that's because the U.S. isn't building any new missiles...