“If the United States genuinely think that it will only be pressure on Iran that forces a compromise, they will not offer anything substantial at this stage, preferring to stick with the sanctions route, and are likely to stymie any deal.”
Paul Ingram, BASIC's executive director, was quoted in Euronews. To read more:
U.S. and European nuclear arms control and security experts criticized NATO's new “Strategic Concept” as a conservative, backward-looking policy, a missed opportunity to reduce the number and role of the 200 forward-deployed U.S. tactical nuclear bombs and engage Russia in a dialogue on removing all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.
The Obama Administration was hoping for the U.S. Senate to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) now that the U.S. mid-term elections are over. If the treaty is not brought to the floor before the end of the year, then prospects for the treaty dim in a Senate where more members will be reluctant to hand the President a foreign policy achievement, and votes in favor of the treaty will be more difficult to muster.
Des Browne argued that “while there is no case for NATO giving up all its nuclear forces unilaterally, there is also no real case for continuing with the status quo….. The question for NATO as it revises its Strategic Concept ahead of Lisbon is what can it do to add to the disarmament momentum without either undermining alliance cohesion or taking unnecessary risks with alliance security?
NATO can and should reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons. First, President Obama with his April 2009 Prague speech has changed the way in which nuclear deterrence is discussed in many NATO member states.
"The threat perceptions of Turkey and the other NATO alliances are overlapped to some extent but not completely....... That's where the real debate inside NATO comes from; it's from differing threat perceptions."
Dr Ian Kearns, BASIC's Research Director was interviewed after the roundtable along with other particpants.