Share | Contact Us | NPEC Email Alerts |
Missiles, Defenses, and Space The Nonproliferation Regime Nuclear Power Economics Nuclear Abolition & The Next Arms Race

  
 

Follow @NuclearPolicy to be the first in on NPEC's latest research

 
More of NPEC’s Work
A chronological listing by resource:

Articles | Working Papers & Monographs | Interviews | Official Docs & Letters | Op-Eds & Blogs | Press Releases | Presentations | Audio & Video | Testimony & Transcripts | Translations
 
HOME > TOPICS > Missiles, Defenses, and Space      
Missiles, Defenses, and Space
Jun 30, 2020 Countering Co-Orbital ASATs: What the Winning National Collegiate Debate Team Has to Say
Due to no planning at all, a key topic of NPEC’s current research — what U.S. space arms control policy should be — was this year’s national collegiate debate topic. Slightly less accidental is who won the national competition (which includes 80 of the nation’s leading colleges and universities). Michael Cerny, Raphael J. Piliero, David Bernstein, and Brandon W. Kelley turned in the winning debate submission, "Countering Co-orbital ASATs: Warning Zones in GEO as a Lawful Trigger for Self-Defense." It's a genuine contribution to U.S. space policy. It makes the case for creating zones in space to help protect key satellites from hostile spacecraft. It builds on NPEC’s research and improves on it.  How did I find out about the competition? In late February, NPEC cohosted a debate with the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on National Security and the Law on space self-defense zones between space expert Brian Chow and Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation. Word of the private debate apparently caught the attention of the collegiate debating teams. One of the teams contacted me and volunteered to transcribe a recording of the event and shared the transcript with their colleagues.  The result is the attached winning debate submission, which reinvents space self-defense or keep-out zones as space “warning” zones. Self-defense and keep-out zones have been criticized for running astride the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits states from asserting their sovereign to appropriate territory in space. The proposed warning zones avoids this problem. Rather than being prohibitive redlines designed to trigger the use of force, warning zones are “informational” and designed to deter conflict in space. The proposed warning zones clearly recognize the increasing threat posed by co-orbital rendezvous satellite operations and suggest a useful diplomatic, legal way forward. The winning team clearly deserves our thanks and their work, our attention.  
May 11, 2020 Working Smarter with America's Spacefaring Allies
On March 2nd, the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security held the space policy workshop, "Working Smarter with America's Spacefaring Allies." The workshop focused on the following questions: How can we work smarter militarily in space with our spacefaring allies? What is the case for and against promoting space zones and bodyguards for proximity operations? How can we work smarter commercially in space with our spacefaring allies? In addition, General John Raymond, Commander of the US Space Force and Thomas DiNanno, Senior Bureau Official and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Policy, Emerging Threats, and Outreach Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance served as keynote speaker. The following is the workshop report:  
May 11, 2020 New Frontiers for U.S. Alliance Cooperation with Japan and the ROK
Audio & Video
Apr 23, 2020 National Security Classification Policy Reform Virtual Meeting
On April 23rd, 2020, NPEC hosted a National Security Classification Policy Reform Virtual Meeting. The following videos are highlights of Richard Immerman and Pete Worden respectively. Transcripts of Richard Immerman's and Harvey Rishikof's presentaion have also been included. The meeting itself was in response to a number of recent Defense classification developments. The first of these relates to overly restrictive classification of historical national security documents and government-commissioned historical analyses needed to develop sound national security strategies. The second has to do with overly restrictive classification and security policies that are complicating our country's ability to achieve its security objectives related to space, 5G and cybersecurity, and biotechnology and the health sciences.
Audio & Video; Testimony & Transcripts
Mar 23, 2020 Securing Our Military Satellites Against Shadowing Spacecraft
Earlier, last month, General John Raymond, Chief of Space Command operations, revealed that the Russians had launched a spacecraft that shadowed an important US military satellite. Could the Russians be angling to disable key US and allied space assets? General Raymond would not say but voiced concern. "It's clear," he noted, "Russia is developing on-orbit capabilities that seek to exploit our reliance on space-based systems that fuel our American way of life."  NPEC recently held a workshop with the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security to dive a bit deeper. General Raymond spoke to the group and before his talk, two of the world's leading experts on co-orbital shadowing satellite threats offered their view. The first expert was Brian Chow, a space analyst; the second was Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation. Both focused on whether space keep out zones and shadow spacecraft-blocking body guard satellites might help.  France has announced its desire to create such zones and build satellite bodyguard systems. The United States has yet to support such moves. Should it? In other publications, Brian Chow says yes but there are other views and they too are worth weighing. Toward this end, the transcript below of Dr. Weeden's and Dr. Chow's discussion and two of their previous published exchanges make for interesting reading. 
Testimony & Transcripts
Mar 16, 2020 Missile Wars: What's Coming
On March 16, 2020, NPEC's Executive Director, Henry Sokolski gave the following lecture at University of California: San Diego. Missile Wars: What's Coming Since the 1970s, military theorists have predicted wars would be waged with super precise missiles that would penetrate most defenses. Recent successful missile attacks against oil facilities at Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, and Ain Assad Airbase in Iraq suggest that their predictions have come true. How real is this revolution? What new civilian and military targets might now be vulnerable that previously were not? In the case of civilian targets, such as nuclear power plants and cities, what are the moral and military considerations? This presentation will answer these questions.
Presentations; Audio & Video
Mar 13, 2020 China's Nuclear Arms Are a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery
While our attention on China today is focused on the short-term challenge of tracking the Coronavirus, there is a long-term quandary that also deserves attention. It's China's military strategic intentions. Just what are they?  China experts have tracked Beijing's nuclear doctrine statements, their nuclear and long-range missile programs, and their space access and anti-satellite efforts. Some imterpret these developments as being malign; others chatacterize them as being defensive. Which view is more correct? We don't know. As Michael Mazza of the American Enterprise Institute and Henry Sokolski argue in the attached Foreign Policy piece, "China's Nuclear Arms Are a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery," we need to find out. In specific, Washington should engage Beijing in new strategic capabilities dialogue (not unlike the sort the United States currently conducts with Russia). For reasons we spell out in the piece, this should come before any negotiations on specific arms limits either with China or with China and any other nation. 
Op-Eds & Blogs
Mar 12, 2020 Wargaming the Next Nuclear War: What Does Past Experience Teach?
As America upgrades its strategic nuclear forces, to match Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, war planners have to ask how might this story end. One will hope Washington would succeed in deterring any nuclear use or, at least, prevail intact if use occurred. But will it? One way to get insight into the answer is to simulate or game the next nuclear war. How useful might it be today to design nuclear games or simulations for Congressional or executive branch participation? What should they focus on? What should they avoid? Mark Herman, one of the nation's most experienced war simulation experts and author of Wargaming for Leaders, gives us the answers.
Presentations; Audio & Video
Feb 03, 2020 North Korea's Nuclear Program: The Early Days, 1984-2002
Now that the President’s nuclear disarmament talks with Pyongyang are on the back burner, it’s worth reviewing how well Washington has generally faired in gauging the North Korean nuclear threat. Attached is such an excellent start covering the period from 1984 through 2002 by Torrey Froscher, a former senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nuclear analyst and NPEC advisory board member. Showcased in the CIA’s latest issue of Studies in Intelligence, “North Korea’s Nuclear Program: The Early Days, 1984-2002,” details how U.S. intelligence analysts and policy makers initially underestimated the North Korean nuclear threat and then placed far too much faith in North Korea’s commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. To avoid such excesses in the future, Mr. Froscher recommends that intelligence analysts and policy makers spend, “less time reporting current developments” and devote “more effort to thinking through possible future developments, how they might materialize, and what factors would affect their likelihood.” Developing such alternative nuclear futures was one of the key recommendations of NPEC’s Speaking Truth to Nonproliferation Project, which was spotlighted in a Studies in Intelligence cover story that was published in March of 2019. Mr. Froscher was an active participant in this project and has lectured at several universities as part of NPEC’s academic policy practitioner outreach program. His Studies in Intelligence article was developed from the NPEC lectures he gave over the last two years. His analysis is spot-on as the United States and like-minded nations work to prevent other nations from withdrawing from or violating the NPT.
Articles
Dec 10, 2017 How to Stop Iran's Missile Program
NPEC Executive Director and NPEC Board Member pubish a new piece in the National Interest, "How to Stop Iran's Missile Program," about multilateral options to place limits on the Iranian missile program. 
Op-Eds & Blogs
  1 2 3 4       Next> Last»
The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), is a 501 (c)3 nonpartisan, nonprofit, educational organization
founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues. NPEC educates policymakers, journalists,
and university professors about proliferation threats and possible new policies and measures to meet them.
Feedback
1600 Wilson Blvd. | Suite 640 | Arlington, VA 22209 | phone: 571-970-3187 | webmaster@npolicy.org