Co-hosted by the National Institute for Public Policy
Recently, President Obama called for a one-third reduction in the United States nuclear arsenal from the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty levels. Such reductions would leave the U.S. with roughly 1,000 weapons. The President's announcement has renewed the debate over the appropriate size of U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Advocates of a minimum deterrence posture applaud the announcement and view it as an endorsement for progress towards a nuclear-free world. Skeptics of minimum deterrence maintain that reduced force levels would leave the United States and its allies vulnerable and are largely based on unrealistic hopes and unreliable assumptions.
The National Institute for Public Policy's report Minimum Deterrence: Examining the Evidence offers a valuable insight into the debate. The report is essential to anyone wanting to understand the arguments behind the nuclear forces and reductions debate. NIPP's report makes a compelling case that arguments supporting the minimum deterrence posture are largely based on utopian hopes and are contrary to empirical evidence and diplomatic experience.
Join us for a discussion of the Minimum Deterrence: Examining the Evidence report and its implications for U.S. nuclear weapons policy.
More About the Speakers
Dr. Keith Payne
Study Director and President, National Institute for Public Policy; Head, Graduate Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University; and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Ambassador Robert Joseph
Senior Scholar, National Institute for Public Policy; former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; and former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director, Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense, National Security Council
Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Policy Analyst, Defense and Strategic Policy