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.”
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."
In an article for The New York Times, Prof. Vipin Narang writes that President Donald Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un of North Korea legitimized North Korea’s status as one of the world’s nuclear powers. “North Korea’s nuclear power is politically complete, thanks to the legitimacy that comes from a handshake with an American president,” argues Narang.
Prof. Barry Posen writes in The New York Times about the possible outcomes of different planned military strikes against North Korea. “A combination of diplomacy and deterrence, based on the already impressive strength of South Korean and United States conventional and nuclear forces, is a wise alternative,” concludes Posen.
Prof. Ernest Moniz, the former Secretary of Energy, appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss the Iran nuclear deal. Moniz explains that the deal helps to ensure nuclear security as it “puts in place verification measures that are completely unique and apply to this deal forever.”
Prof. Vipin Narang speaks with New York Times reporter Max Fisher about a potential shift in India’s nuclear weapons doctrine to allow for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. “There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first,” Narang told a gathering of international government officials and policy experts in Washington D.C.