Kosta Tsipis

Arming for peace

Under a U.N.-sponsored nuclear umbrella, nations could devote resources to improving the quality of life rather than the quantity of weapons.

The Long-Range Cruise Missile

From long-range bombers to land-based ICBMs to ballistic missiles launched from nuclear submarines, the strategic arms race has progressed in three channels; now, an entirely new type of weapons system could, if deployed, open up a fourth channel.

The Domenici Challenge

This paper presents an address to the American Nuclear Society by Senator Pete Domenici. In his presentation he touched on nuclear issues ranging from nuclear energy to food irradiation to weapons policies. He discussed what in his mind are poor decisions made in the past which have left the US outside looking in at many parts of nuclear fuel cycle. He suggests new directions and policies to address present needs for greenhouse emissions, for the nuclear stockpile, for weapons dismantlement, for spent fuel storage, and for stewardship of fissile materials.

The Military Sector

It has been 35 years, more than a generation, since the first nuclear explosion was released over the New Mexico desert. The most we can say is that mankind has continued to survive the increasingly ominous chain of moves and counter-moves that have flowed from that war-born measure. But at what cost?The whole world is increasingly afflicted by the threat of nuclear war. An insane and ever-intensifying arms race has bred violence in every lesser form, carried hunger and disease in its train as needed resources were devoted elsewhere, and has deepened the insecurity even of those who were arming themselves to the teeth. Are we condemned to a race in which the only conceivable end is assured mutual destruction today or tomorrow?As Americans enter the decade of the 1980s, they may expect to spend over one trillion dollars in the first five years on their defense. In the name of national security, the U.S. Congress has permitted the military a stranglehold on an immense sector of government expenditure.In thi...

The spiral of peril: a narrative of the nuclear arms race

This first in a series of tutorial articles designed to prepare readers for nuclear-weapons-policy discussions describes the development of the arms race. Large-scale war dates to ancient times, but the intercontinental scale is new in this century and the weapons systems now threatening human survival date only to World War II. The major change is in distant delivery and the scale of destruction that nuclear weapons make possible. The author chronicles US-USSR weaponry developments and their effect on the pattern of international alliances as the nuclear club has grown, as well as its political momentum. He notes three periods of restraint: in response to radioactive fallout in the 1950s, during the Salt II Treaty negotiation, and the current public demonstration. (DCK)

New Weapons and the Arms Race

In speaking about technologies that could further animate the weapons competition between the United States and the U.S.S.R., it would be useful to distinguish between technologies that have already been incorporated into specific weapons systems, and new technologies that are of a generic nature, can be used in a variety of applications, adn can best be described by the tasks that they can perform rather than any specific weapons application. Let me begin with the latter class.

Nuclear reactor high-level waste: Origin and safe disposal

Abstract High-level waste (HL W) is a natural component of the nuclear fuel cycle. Because of its radioactivity, HL W needs to be handled with great care. Different alternatives for permanently storing HL W are evaluated. Studies have shown that the disposal of HL W is safest when the waste is first vitrified before storage. Simple calculations show that vitrified HL W that is properly buried in deep, carefully chosen crystalline rock structures poses insignlficant health risks.

After the Cold War: New tasks for arms controllers

ARMS CONTROL EFFORTS in the United States following World War II have mainly focused on opposition to specific nuclear weapons systems and dangerous defense policies. These efforts have largely consisted of persistent advocacy for negotiated agreements with the Soviet Union to limit or reduce nuclear arsenals, and of scientific studies setting forth the technical or operational flaws of various nuclear weapons systems. And there has been some degree of success: nuclear war has been avoided; deployment of destabilizing antiballistic missile systems has been averted; but, most importantly, arms reduction agreements have become legitimate components of U.S. national security policy. In the past 45 years, arms control activities have been determined by the environment of hostility and mistrust between the U.S. and Soviet governments, an environment created by threats to the Western democracies emanating from a truculent, militarily powerful Soviet Union. Because these threats were warlike, the U.S. response was in the same vein, albeit often overreactive. During that time, it was mainly up to the arms control community to invent and advocate weapons reduction initiatives, suggest ways to verify them, maintain working contacts with Soviet colleagues, and oppose dangerous Pentagon plans and weapons. But now an entirely new era has emerged: the Soviet Union is renouncing the Cold War and seeking drastic reduction of nuclear and conventional military forces, while U.S. allies are clamoring for deeper cuts in nuclear weapons in Europe. The United States and the Soviet Union are conferring at several levels: negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals and shrink conventional forces in Europe are now under way; unprecedented arrangements for on-site verification inspections in support of arms control agreements are already in place. And the nature of the threat has changed: The emerging current dangers to the United States are not warlike; rather, the looming threats are environmental degradation and economic decline. In this new climate, it is perhaps timely for arms control advocates to reconsider the direction of our efforts. Instead of continuing the microcriticism of the Pentagons weapons wish-list, we should focus attention on a new set of tasks. We should, for example, develop a new U.S. agenda that defines our concepts of U.S.-Soviet relations, along with proposals for dealing with the new threats, both national

Cruise missiles should not stop START

There are technical solutions to the problem of verifying small cruise missiles—measures that would not interfere with military secrets or the operational readiness of the missiles.

Military R&D: Congress' next area of policy penetration

The legislative branch is at last beginning to shuck its traditional deference to the Pentagon