75 research outputs found
Verifying Nuclear Disarmament
Commentators differ on whether nuclear disarmament would be desirable, but
many argue that disarmament is impractical because it could not be verified. Three
reasons are often offered for such pessimism. First, nuclear weapons are small and
difficult to detect, and one could not be sure that a few weapons had not been
hidden away. Second, nuclear weapons are so destructive that a mere handful would
confer enormous military and political advantages over non-nuclear adversaries.
Finally, nuclear know-how cannot be eliminated, and any nation that had dismantled
its nuclear weapons would be capable of quickly assembling a new arsenal from
scratch or using civilian nuclear materials. Because of the difficulty of verifying that
other states had eliminated all their weapons and providing adequate warning of
their rearming, it is argued, states would not agree to disarm in the first place
Decarbonizing the Global Energy System
Invited update of my Stanford report by Annual Reviews of Energy and Environment, then rejected.To stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at an equivalent doubling, CO2 emissions
must be limited to 5 PgC y–1 in 2050, compared to 8 PgC y–1 today. This will require the decarbonization of world energy supply, in which fossil fuels, which today account for 85% of energy supply, are replaced by carbon-free sources. Only five sources are capable of supplying a
substantial fraction of the required carbon-free supply: biomass, fission, solar, wind, and decarbonized fossil fuels. Other sources are either too limited, too expensive, or too unproven to make a substantial contribution by 2050. Each of the major alternatives has significant economic,
technical, or environmental handicaps. Biomass can supply affordable portable fuels, but would require vast areas of land, in competition with agriculture and natural ecosystems. Fission is a mature technology, but suffers from public-acceptance problems related to the risks of accidents,
waste disposal, and proliferation. Solar is environmentally benign but expensive and would require massive storage or transmission. Wind is economically competitive at windy sites, but attractive sites are limited. Fossil fuels are cheap and abundant, but the cost of CO2 capture and
disposal may be high and the environmental impacts unknown
Space Solar Power: An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come?
Arthur Smith laments the lack of attention to space solar power (SSP), but SSP cannot compete with solar power based on earth. The advantage of SSP is a large and constant solar flux: 1.37 kW m–2 or 12,000 kWh m–2 y–1. This is about five times higher than the average flux in sunny areas on the earth’s surface, such as the American southwest. The larger solar flux in space cannot compensate, however, for the cost of placing systems in orbit and losses in transmitting the electricity back to earth
Future Directions in Nuclear Arms Control and Verification
Delivered at the 62nd meeting of the German Physical Society, Regensburg, Germany, 26 March 1998To date, nuclear arms control has focused on restricting the
number and capabilities of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles—
intercontinental missiles and bombers. In the future, it will
become increasingly important to combine these measures with
restrictions on nuclear warhead and fissile-material stockpiles
and on the operation and targeting of nuclear forces. Restrictions
on nuclear warheads, materials, operations, and targeting would
not only help improve stability, but would also help reduce the
risk of accidental, unauthorized, or erroneous use of nuclear
weapons. A major challenge is verifying compliance with such
restrictions. This paper outlines the technical possibilities for
verifying limits on stockpiles of warheads and fissile materials,
on the dismantling of nuclear warheads and the disposition of
fissile materials, and on the launch-readiness of nuclear forces in
the hope of stimulating further research on these topics
The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Element of U.S. Nonproliferation Policy
CISSM Forum PresentationWe
are delighted to inform you that Dean Steve Fetter will present a
luncheon lecture under the auspices of the ISEP/CISSM/DC Forum on
Thursday, April 6, 2006, in recognition of his receipt of the Hans
Bethe Award. The lecture and luncheon will begin
at 12:15 p.m. in the Atrium of Van Munching Hall. Please RSVP to Anja
Kuznetsova at x57614 or [email protected].
The
Federation of American Scientists has presented the Hans Bethe Award to
Steve Fetter in recognition of his outstanding contributions as an
advocate for arms control and nonproliferation, and for his rigorous
and insightful analysis of nuclear energy, climate change, and
carbon-free energy supply. It is a truly distinctive prize that brings honor to the School of Public Policy
The Future of Nuclear Arms Control
American Physical Society Centennial Symposium:
History of Physics in National Defense,
World Congress Center, Atlanta, 24 May 1999It’s a great privilege for me to be invited to join this very distinguished panel.
As you can tell from the color of my hair, I represent the next generation of
physicists involved in public policy. Rather than talk about the history of physics
in national defense, I’ll talk about the future—in particular, the future of nuclear
arms control
The Effects of Nuclear Detonations and Nuclear War
Nuclear war conjures up images of mass destruction and mutilation that few are willing to contemplate in detail. This chapter reviews the effects of nuclear explosions and describes the damage that might result from various types of nuclear strikes
Climate Change and the Transformation of World Energy Supply
In December 1997, world attention turned to Kyoto, Japan, where parties to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) negotiated a protocol to
reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of the industrialized countries by 5 percent
below 1990 levels over the next ten to fifteen years. The agreement has been
attacked from both sides. Environmental groups assert that much deeper reductions
are urgently needed. Opponents claim that the proposed reductions are either
unnecessary or premature, would curtail economic growth, or would be unfair or
ineffective without similar commitments by developing countries.
Both groups overstate the importance of near-term reductions in emissions. The
modest reductions called for by the Kyoto agreement are a sensible first step, but
only if they are part of a larger and longer-term strategy. Indeed, near-term
reductions can be counterproductive if they are not implemented in a manner that
is consistent with a long-term strategy to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations.
The centerpiece of any long-term strategy to limit climate change is a
transformation in world energy supply, in which traditional fossil fuels are
replaced by energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide. This transformation
must begin in earnest in the next 10 to 20 years, and must be largely complete by
2050. Today, however, all carbon-free energy sources have serious economic,
technological, or environmental drawbacks. If economically competitive and
environmentally attractive substitutes are not widely available in the first half of
the next century, it will be impossible to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at
acceptable levels.The Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University
Protecting Our Military Space Systems
Over the last 25 years the United States has become increasingly dependent on space-based systems to support its military forces, and this trend is likely to continue for some time. Satellite systems have become an
integral part of nuclear deterrence by providing strategic warning of an
attack, tactical warning of missile launches, reliable communications between command authorities and nuclear forces, and nuclear explosion detection. Satellites also aid in conventional war-fighting by providing
accurate reconnaissance, intelligence, weather, and navigation information
Decarbonizing the Global Energy System: Implications for Energy Technology and Security
Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988, it has
engaged a substantial proportion of those individuals with relevant scientific expertise in the
process of forming reasonable judgments about the effects of aggregate human activity on the
composition of the earth’s atmosphere and about the resulting implications for global climate. It
is now widely agreed that in concert with other so-called “greenhouse gases,” carbon dioxide
(CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels for energy is causing the earth’s climate to
change. Over the last century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from about
300 to 375 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and global average surface temperature
increased by 0.4 to 0.8 oC. In the absence of policies designed to substantially reduce global
emissions, scenarios developed by the IPCC indicate that CO2 concentrations will reach 550 to
1000 ppmv in 2100 and that global average surface temperature will increase by an additional
1.5 to 6 oC (IPCC 2001a).
The consequences of such a temperature increase and associated changes in precipitation patterns
and other climate variables are a matter of greater uncertainty and disagreement. At the lower
end of the range, it is possible that nothing of global consequence will occur, and that the
regional and more localized effects will be moderate enough to be handled by natural adaptation.
It also conceivable—particularly at the high end of the temperature range—that abrupt, nonlinear
and fundamental changes could be triggered, such as a sudden change in large-scale ocean
currents, with truly massive and potentially catastrophic consequences for human societies. The
IPCC has identified the possibility of extreme danger, but has been and will remain unable to
reach consensus on its exact character, magnitude, probability and timing
- …