A Presentation by Henry Sokolski Executive Director Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Alexander Hamilton Society George Mason University.

A Presentation by Henry SokolskiExecutive Director

Nonproliferation Policy Education Centerwww.npolicy.org

Alexander Hamilton SocietyGeorge Mason University

March 29, 2012

Fissile Material Control Treaty (FMCT)

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Additional New START agreements

Sharing peaceful nuclear energy technology under proliferation controls

1961 2011

1961 – 3 countries 2011 – 31 countries

Countries shown in beige already have established nuclear power programs

1. Take more concerted action alone, with out allies and friends, and with Russia to clarify and constrain China’s and other states’ offensive strategic military capabilities.

2. Encourage nuclear supplier states to condition the further export of civilian nuclear plants upon the recipient forswearing making nuclear fuel and opening their nuclear facilities to the latest, most intrusive, international nuclear inspection procedures.

3. Do more to reduce states’ access to surplus nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles that they could convert into bombs.

SLIDE 6 : FROM U.S. STRATEGIC DOMINANCE TO A COMPRESSED NUCLEAR CROWD

Russia and the U.S.State Department Fact Sheet, June 1, 2011Bulletin of Atomic ScientistsHans M. Kristensen, “Tac Nuke Numbers Confirmed?” FAS Strategic Security Blog

UK, France, India, Pakistan, China Pakistan’s Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War (Chapter 6: “Fissile Materials in South Asia and the Implications of the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal” by Mian et al.,) Bulletin of Atomic ScientistsArms Control AssociationSIPRI Yearbook 2011Federation of American Scientists 

IsraelArms Control AssociationFissile Material Stockpiles and Production, 2008, Alexander Glaser and Zia Mian

Frank Barnaby, The Invisible Bomb: The Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East (I. B. Tauris, London, 1989); and M. Vanunu, Interviews with Barnaby, September 1986.

“Air Force Report: The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies: Israel’s Nuclear Weapons by Warner Farr, LTC, U.S. Army” (Sept. 1999)The Sampson Option by Seymor Hersh Brower, Kenneth S., “A Propensity for Conflict:  Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,”  Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14,  (February 1997), 14-15.

SLIDE 7: 2011: POTENTIAL NUCLEAR BREAK-OUT STOCKPILES Global Fissile Material Report, 2011

SLIDE 8: FROM TWO NUCLEAR-CAPABLE MISSILE COUNTRIES TO 27 Arms Control Association, “Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories” available from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.

SLIDE 11: THE NEXT DECADE: NUCLEAR UNCERTAINTIES AND COMPETITIONS

China William Wan, “Georgetown Students Shed Light on China’s Underground Missile System for Nuclear Weapons,” The Washington

Post, November 29, 2011 Hans Kristensen, “No, China Does Not Have 3,000 Nuclear Weapons,” FAS Strategic Security Blog, December 3, 2011,

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/12/chinanukes.php Robert Burns, “US Weighing Steep Nuclear Arms Cuts,” Associated Press, February 14, 2012,

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/02/14/ap_newsbreak_us_weighing_steep_nuclear_arms_cuts/

SLIDE 14: OUR PROLIFERATION PAST AND PRESENT Henry D. Sokolski, “Nuclear 1914: The Next Big Worry,” in Henry Sokolski, ed., Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats,

Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, May 2006, p. 44, available from http://www.npolicy.org/thebook.php?bid=8.

SLIDE 12: OUR PROLIFERATION FUTURE Henry D. Sokolski, “Nuclear 1914: The Next Big Worry,” in Henry

Sokolski, ed., Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, May 2006, p. 45, available from http://www.npolicy.org/thebook.php?bid=8.