Prof. Vipin Narang speaks with New York Times reporter David E. Sanger about the “use of nuclear weapons as the ultimate bargaining chip.” Narang explains: “A nuclear threshold is not determined by words, but by the deterrence balance and stakes, and changes to declaratory doctrine do not at all change the deterrence balance between the U.S., NATO and Russia.”
Research affiliate Thomas Neff, a physicist known for his proposal aimed at “reducing the global stockpile of nuclear weapons and helping stabilize the former Soviet Union,” has died at age 80, reports Harrison Smith for the Washington Post. Credited with the “Megatons to Megawatts” agreement, “Dr. Neff spent years working in arms control, nuclear weapons proliferation and uranium markets, bridging the divide between experts who specialized in the kind of highly enriched uranium used for warheads and the far less enriched version used for electricity generation,” Smith writes.
Research affiliate Thomas Neff, a physicist whose work with nuclear weapon conversion led to an agreement “that reduced nuclear threats and produced one of the greatest peace dividends of all time,” has died at the age of 80, reports William J. Broad for The New York Times. Neff’s idea of converting Soviet nuclear weapons into electricity used to power American cities “turned some 20,000 Russian nuclear arms into electricity, lighting billions of American lightbulbs.”
Senior Lecturer John Parsons speaks with CNN reporters Angela Dewan, Ella Nilsen and Lou Robinson about the future of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – nuclear technology that is smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors. “The target here is to produce electricity cheaper than coal and gas plants,” says Parsons. These fossil fuel plants “are terribly simple and cheap to run – they’re just dirty.”
Graduate student Lt. Col. Jill Rahon, a war veteran and seasoned pilot, discusses her journey from her tours in Afghanistan to her research at MIT on engineering solutions for the enforcement of nuclear nonproliferation accords, writes Sam Cavanaugh for Hoodline. “The path Rahon has blazed is marked by courage and ingenuity, from deftly handling the controls of a Chinook helicopter over the treacherous terrains of Afghanistan to meticulously studying the nuances of resonance analysis to keep nuclear powers in check,” writes Cavanaugh.
In an article for The Boston Globe, Prof. Emeritus Ernest Moniz explores the risks associated with the cesium-137 devices used in hospitals. “Boston hospitals have an opportunity to receive tens of thousands of dollars of grants toward the purchase of new equipment that is just as effective for medical and research purposes as the radiological devices they have been using for decades,” writes Moniz, “while shedding the liabilities and security costs associated with cesium sources.”
Writing for The New York Times, Steven Simon, a fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies, and Jonathan Stevenson of the International Institute for Strategic Studies explore the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s nuclear threats. “The United States and NATO should be less deferential to Mr. Putin’s attempt to wield the threat of nuclear weapons,” they write, “not only for the sake of supporting Ukraine but also to ensure global geopolitical stability in the future.”
A series of recently tested hypersonic missiles in North Korea brings forth concerns about vulnerability for U.S. troops and their allies in Asia, reports Josh Smith for Reuters. Research affiliate David Wright warns that “South Korea and the roughly 28,500 U.S. troops based there are so close that incoming missiles could fly on even lower trajectories, with a much shorter flight time, making defense more difficult,” writes Smith.
Writing for the Financial Times, research fellow Laura Grego examines why China is developing new nuclear delivery systems and modernizing its weapons arsenal. “One core driver is to make clear to an unconvinced United States that it is vulnerable to Chinese nuclear retaliation despite enormous investments in missile defenses,” writes Grego. “Many of the technologies China is pursuing, including those believed to have been tested this summer, are designed to overwhelm or evade such defenses.”
Prof. Vipin Narang speaks with Washington Post reporter Elizabeth Saunders about the process by which the U.S. president can order a nuclear strike. “The president, and the president alone, possesses the sole authority to order a nuclear launch, and no one can legally stop him or her,” Narang explains. “Despite reports that Pelosi received assurances that there are safeguards in place in the event the president of the United States (POTUS) wants to launch a nuclear weapon, any such meaningful or effective safeguards would be illegal.”
In an article for CNN, Jim Walsh, a research associate at the Center for International Studies, examines how the U.S. can avoid pushing Iran to build a nuclear bomb. “The President can begin to quietly ratchet down his maximum pressure campaign, for example, by issuing waivers on oil sanctions,” writes Walsh. “He can find third parties to communicate with the Iranians.”
Prof. Theodore Postol writes for The New York Times about the potential consequences of the United States of America withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. “It is the unimaginable capabilities of these weapons that must take center stage when considering the giant and still unknown terrors and threats they pose to global stability and humanity’s future,” argues Postol.
Prof. Vipin Narang writes for Foreign Affairs about the state of North Korea’s nuclear program following President Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Narang argues that the U.S. should try to “establish a stable deterrence regime rather than pressing for immediate unilateral disarmament, ensuring that nuclear dangers on the Korean Peninsula are managed responsibly.”
Prof. Emeritus Ernest Moniz – former US Energy Secretary and co-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative – speaks with Jeremy Hobson on WBUR’s Here & Now about the Trump-Putin summit and what it could mean for nuclear dialogue.
In this CNBC article, Prof. R. Scott Kemp weighs in on the implications of the agreement signed by President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Kemp writes that, “a realistic agreement will probably take years to hash out, as there is much to learn about North Korea's program first. The Trump-Kim statement of principles is exactly what is needed to get started."