A new academic paper contends that the international community’s focus on “supply-side” technology constraints to stop nuclear proliferation is failing.
In a paper published on Tuesday in International Security, R. Scott Kemp argues that policymakers are overly reliant on limiting international market access to certain sensitive technologies and substances that can be used to produce nuclear fuel. This follows the belief — which the author thinks is “misguided” — that with the exception of a few advanced industrial nations, a country’s capacity to develop nuclear arms “hinges on its ability” to import the necessary equipment.
Kemp, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, examined 21 centrifuge programs around the world. He found that while access to technology once served as a constraint, it ceased doing so in the 1970s and 1980s. Kemp’s historical analysis concludes that 14 countries have been able to acquire gas centrifuges “using only a minimum of technical and human resources” that arguably could be attained by “many or most of today’s developing countries.”
“That this is possible should not be surprising: the technologies needed to make nuclear weapons have remained static, whereas the indigenous capabilities of states have steadily grown over the last half-century,” he wrote.
Kemp, a onetime science adviser on nonproliferation issues at the State Department, argues that the international community should recalibrate how much energy it devotes to “supply-side” measures, in contrast to approaches aimed at dissuading states from pursuing atomic arms in the first place. In an interview with the MIT News office, Kemp said, “We need to get past the idea that we can control the destiny of nations by regulating access to technology. International security must ultimately resort to the difficult business of politics.”
At the same time, Kemp does not argue for ending regulations on access to sensitive nuclear technologies altogether. He notes that they are useful in constraining the spread of higher-performance centrifuges, as well as “noncentrifuge modes of nuclear proliferation.”
In a limited number of cases — such as Libya and Iraq — supply-side constraints can actually bolster internal limitations a government might face in establishing the research infrastructure necessary to support an effective warhead development program, Kemp said. Both countries attempted to pursue nuclear weapon programs decades ago, but they were ultimately unsuccessful.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.