Recent Policy Analysis

In 2008, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation sought input from 60 scientists, academics, members of Congress, senior congressional staffers, and representatives from advocacy groups, think tanks, and foundations to assess the priorities for the next Administration on nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. This report summarizes the consultations.

Every think tank, non-profit, trade association, and lobbyist in town has produced a set of policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration. The bad news is that I come bearing yet another policy memo for Team Obama. The good news is that my recommendations are the consensus of an arms control brain trust.

National missile defense continues to be a controversial initiative supported by a dedicated core of enthusiasts. In this new Huffington Post commentary, Lt. General Robert Gard addresses the latest effort by conservatives to manufacture public support for missile defense through fear.

This statement was presented by Leonor Tomero, director for nuclear nonproliferation, at the Department of Energy’s December 9 hearing on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).

In the last two decades there has been a notable shift toward short-term curative and emergency medical care. As Alan Pearson and Jason Haile explain in this new policy brief, however, this increasing focus on treating specific diseases too often further diverts funding and resources away from the development of robust health care systems - systems that must be in place to effectively respond to a public health crisis like a biological weapons attack.

In this new op-ed published in the Guardian UK, executive director John Isaacs argues that the security agreement signed by the United States and Iraq and approved by the Iraqi parliament last week marks the beginning of the end of the American occupation.

The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism released its final report on December 2. Leading experts from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation issued reactions to the Commission’s findings.

Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"

President-elect Barack Obama announced on December 1 that he will nominate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to be Secretary of State. Exaggerated reporting notwithstanding, the fact is that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree. In this analysis, executive director John Isaacs compares Obama and Clinton on Iraq, Iran, missile defense, North Korea, and nuclear nonproliferation.

The status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq reinforces the views held by the majority of Iraqis and Americans that it is time for U.S. military forces to leave Iraq. As Iraq’s parliament prepares to vote on the agreement on Wednesday, November 26, John Isaacs and Travis Sharp analyze the content and implications of the pact in this new policy brief.

While the election of Barack Obama heralds an impending change in U.S. policy toward Iraq, defense officials in Washington and Baghdad continue to focus on transforming the Iraqi military into a legitimate fighting force. Both the United States and Iraq seem to agree that no matter what President-elect Obama’s new strategy looks like, bolstering the strength and effectiveness of the Iraqi Security Forces will play a key role in stabilizing Iraq in the wake of U.S. troop withdrawals.

On November 12, Lt. General Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, gave a press briefing where he wildly exaggerated the capabilities of U.S. missile defense systems. In this short analysis, executive director John Isaacs corrects the record.

In this full-length essay published in the autumn 2008 issue of Parameters: U.S. Army War College Quarterly, military policy analyst Travis Sharp argues that spending four percent of GDP on defense is a policy proposal that should be rejected by budget experts and national security analysts alike.

If the United States and countries around the world are serious about preventing a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, efforts to contain the threat at its source need serious attention. In this new policy brief, Travis Sharp and Erica Poff analyze the threat of nuclear terrorism and offer five policy recommendations that should be pursued immediately.

Ambassador Peter Galbraith, senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, talked about Iraq on NPR's All Things Considered on November 12.

The Bush administration has tried for years to build support for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. White House officials claim that the system will protect America’s allies from an Iranian missile attack. Unfortunately, the proposed system is plagued with budgetary, technical, and political problems, and actually poses serious risks to American security.

An English translation of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement was released just this week. The agreement already has come under fire in Iraq because many Iraqi lawmakers oppose it and now are seeking to reopen negotiations. This analysis provides a brief look at four elements covered in the agreement.

Despite the Bush administration's investment of an estimated $60 billion since 2001, U.S. national missile defense continues to be an unnecessary and counterproductive enterprise. In this commentary published in Defense News on October 20, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Kingston Reif outline three essential changes that could set missile defense back on a productive course.

Over the past several months, a handful of conservative security analysts have begun to argue for upgrading the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. In this commentary, Executive Director John Isaacs dismantles the argument for bolstering America’s “nuclear deterrent,” which of course is a euphemism for building more new nuclear weapons.

The U.S.-India nuclear agreement is an unneeded and potentially disastrous Bush administration initiative that undermines a 30-year nonproliferation policy pioneered by the United States and adopted by 189 nations.

This updated resource provides a side-by-side comparison of Barack Obama and John McCain on 15 key arms control issues.

Many Americans may not realize that the United States will spend more on defense over the next 365 days than on the $700 billion bailout package. In this commentary for Foreign Policy in Focus, Travis Sharp considers what might happen with future U.S. defense budgets now that the economy is in shambles.

Despite much frustration, now is not the time to abandon continued engagement with North Korea, especially given its danger of reopening its reprocessing facility and producing additional nuclear weapons material. The alternative to engagement is the potential resumption of nuclear weapons production by North Korea, an outcome that poses a grave threat to international security.

At a time when people are losing their homes and struggling to make ends meet, many Americans find the $700 billion cost of the financial rescue package to be simply unacceptable. What many Americans probably don’t realize is that the United States is likely to spend $711 billion, more than the cost of the financial bailout, on national defense in the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2008.

We hear again and again from Washington that we have turned a corner in Iraq and are on the path to victory. In his latest essay for the New York Review of Books, Ambassador Peter Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, disputes the notion that the current state of affairs in Iraq can be called a success - or a path to victory.

With members of Congress eager to leave town for the campaign trail, and Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 starting on October 1, Congress slapped together a consolidated appropriations package that includes several appropriations bills and a continuing resolution (known as a 'CR') all rolled into one. The package provides $487.7 billion in total defense funding, $4 billion less than the administration's request but 6.2 percent above the FY2008 funding level.

Congress decided to skip the normal conference procedure for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Authorization bill (S.3001). Working together, the House and Senate produced a joint bill that now must gain final approval from the House and Senate before it can be sent to President Bush for his signature. The bill fully authorizes the administration’s $542.5 billion National Defense (function 050) request. The bill also authorizes $68.5 billion in "bridge" funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a “base” budget plus “bridge” budget grand total of $611.1 billion.

This report, written by a taskforce of experts in fields including military budgeting, forces and policy, nonproliferation, development, alternative energy, and homeland security, outlines a way to do the rebalancing between military and non-military security tools, rather than just talking about it.

A list of quotes from prominent members of Congress and editorial and opinion pieces from newspapers across the country stressing the importance of maintaining positive relations with Russia.

Thirty four independent experts and organizations sent a letter to members of Congress recently asking them to resist pressure to rush toward approving the U.S.-India nuclear agreement in its current form.

In early September, several news outlets reported that Iraq is interested in buying 36 F-16 fighter jets from the United States. This proposed sale is the latest development in an intense push by the United States and Iraq to transform the Iraqi military into a legitimate fighting force. Recent weapons acquisition proposals would enlarge the Iraqi Security Forces’ purview from merely enforcing internal order to counterbalancing other countries in the region.

On September 10, the Defense Department announced that it was terminating the current competition to build the next generation of the Air Force's airborne refueling tanker, leaving the final decision on who would control the $35 billion program to the next Administration.

The first rule of physicians is “Do No Harm.” The first rule of a nation’s reprisals should be “Do No Harm to Yourself.” Yet in the wake of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, both the United States and Russia are considering reckless steps aimed at the other country that could be startlingly self-destructive.

On August 25, 2008, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a fact sheet for press at the Democratic National Convention claiming that “Nuclear power plants and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are not linked.” This statement assumes that sensitive nuclear technologies will not spread. However, Bush's current proposal for reprocessing poses consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons-usable material throughout the world.

After being on life support for nearly a year, the U.S.-India nuclear deal is back in a big way. With time running out before the U.S. Congress is set to adjourn on September 26, both India and the United States are racing to finalize the deal as quickly as possible. This rush to completion, however, could have disastrous consequences. The deal violates U.S. law, hurts American businesses, and undermines U.S. nonproliferation objectives.

After more than 18 months of hesitation, the United States and Poland on August 20 suddenly signed an agreement to place American missile defense interceptors on Polish territory. Poland's acquiescence is widely believed to be a result of Russia's recent aggressive actions in Georgia.

The Bush administration intended for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to jump-start a global nuclear power revival without the attendant proliferation risks. But as the administration comes to a close, the partnership has only heightened proliferation concerns, leaving GNEP's future murky. In this new article published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online, Leonor Tomero, Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, explains how GNEP's stakeholders - both domestic and foreign - will likely move forward even if GNEP does not.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and its Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons delivered this statement at the Meeting of Experts of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention on August 19, 2008.

The Bush administration intended for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to jump-start a global nuclear power revival without the attendant proliferation risks. But as the administration comes to a close, the partnership has only heightened proliferation concerns, leaving GNEP's future murky. In this new article published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online, Leonor Tomero, Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, explains how GNEP's stakeholders - both domestic and foreign - will likely move forward even if GNEP does not.

Despite the death of Bruce Ivins, the man the FBI claims is solely responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, questions about the largest biological attack carried out on U.S. soil still remain. What are the big picture implications for our nation's security from biological attacks? What can be done to strengthen the oversight of national biodefense programs and dual-use research in the life sciences? Starting Monday, August 18, Alan Pearson, the Center's Director of Biological and Chemical Weapons Prevention, will blog from a major international UN conference addressing some of these very issues.

To defend against bioweapons, we need not more but better research efforts. The probability that biological weapons will be used against Americans is low, but the consequences of such an attack could be devastating. We cannot meet the threat safely or effectively with a strategy that puts bioweapons agents in more and more people's hands.

During the last week of July, the Department of Defense notified Congress about the proposed sale of $10.9 billion in U.S. military equipment and support to Iraq. Besides the eye-catching price tag, the equipment included in the proposed agreement represents a potential watershed in the development of Iraq’s military capabilities. In this new article published on IraqSlogger.com, military policy analyst Travis Sharp considers the implications for the balance of power in the region and raises questions about oversight, accountability, and transparency in a country riddled with internal violence.

Given the many outstanding questions and contradictions that have yet to be resolved, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the U.S. Congress must not be bullied into making a hasty decision on the U.S.-India nuclear deal. The Bush administration's desire to complete the deal before it leaves office cannot be allowed to come to fruition at the expense of key U.S. nonproliferation objectives.

The Bush administration intended for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to jump-start a global nuclear power revival without the attendant proliferation risks. But as the administration comes to a close, the partnership has only heightened proliferation concerns, leaving GNEP's future murky. In this new article published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online, Leonor Tomero, Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, explains how GNEP's stakeholders - both domestic and foreign - will likely move forward even if GNEP does not.

Today's shocking revelation about the apparent suicide of a top Army microbiologist and lead suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks has intensified the need for a thorough investigation into the only significant bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil, said Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

In this letter published in the Wall Street Journal Asia, Kingston Reif and Leonor Tomero highlight three fatal flaws contained in the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

As the Bush administration's time in office approaches its end, it is pushing hard to secure Czech and Polish approval for the third site. However, approval is not likely to be forthcoming and tests of the system will take many years. Consequently, it will fall to the next president and the next Congress to determine the fate of the system.

The same neoconservatives who dominated the Bush administration for almost eight years are now screaming like stuck pigs over the administration's latest moves on North Korea. You would have thought that the heathens had been let into the temple - or, even worse, that W. had appointed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Cabinet positions.

On July 22, news broke that the Navy had decided to terminate its DDG-1000 destroyer program. Formerly known as "DD(X)," the vessel is intended to perform a land-attack/fire-support mission for the Navy. According to the Department of Defense, the total value of the program is roughly $29 billion.

A summary of Iraq and Afghanistan war funding to date.

U.S. defense spending has increased markedly under the Bush administration and is now at its highest level, in inflation-adjusted terms, since World War II. Tying defense spending to GDP basically amounts to using overall wealth creation to justify ever-increasing defense budgets. If the American economy triples in size, should our grandchildren spend three times more on defense than we do today just because they are three times richer?

With U.S. troops still in Iraq, rising tensions between the United States and Iran, and the looming threat of nuclear terrorism, foreign policy and arms control have once again taken center stage on the presidential campaign trail. In order to get a detailed picture of Barack Obama and John McCain’s positions, the Center has produced a series of analyses on arms control and national security issues in the 2008 presidential race.

In a campaign that features back and forth on issues large and small, where Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on everything from taxes to offshore drilling to Social Security to Iraq, it is amazing how much agreement there is on nuclear weapons issues. As Executive Director John Isaacs told the Los Angeles Times on July 13, "We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected." In this short analysis, Isaacs lists seven areas of agreement, and six of disagreement, between Obama and McCain on nuclear weapons issues.

In his July 7 op-ed piece, "New Life for the India Nuclear Pact," Bill Emmott said that Congress must not allow India's close ties with Iran to hold up the U.S.-India nuclear deal and that the deal is worth pursuing. In reality, the India-Iran relationship should be cause for concern.

With pressure on both houses of Congress to pass legislation imposing more sanctions against Iran, and without key opposition from the oil lobby, the Iran Sanctions Act of 2008 could be passed yet in the Senate. But, according to Iran Policy Analyst Carah Ong, the act could harm diplomacy not only with Tehran, but also with Moscow, thanks to provisions that are opposed by the Bush administration as well as several senators. Read Ong's full analysis, published on Right Web on July 10, 2008.

In this letter to the editor of the Washington Times, Scoville Fellow Kingston Reif refutes arguments in favor of a U.S. missile defense system in Europe, including those claiming that it would protect Europe and the United States against an Iranian missile attack.

Iran currently presents a number of serious problems for the United States. However, the current threat posed by Iran is exaggerated by conflating it with Iran's potential, but far from certain, acquisition of a nuclear weapon in the future. In this new analysis, the two countries' conventional military capabilities are compared side-by-side. The bottom line is clear: Iran does not currently represent an existential threat to the United States or its allies, and there is still time to find a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear program.

In order to achieve progress on effective nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, the next President will need to construct a bureaucratic structure that enhances the capacity of the United States to pursue bold measures.

In order to achieve much-needed progress on effective nuclear arms control and non-proliferation, the next President will need to construct a bureaucratic structure that enhances, rather than undermines, the capacity of the United States to pursue bold measures. Filling the position of U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism would be a great place to start.

In this useful analysis, Executive Director John Isaacs compares and contrasts John McCain and Barack Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and much more.

This spring, the New York Times exposed a six-year-long Bush administration propaganda campaign using retired military officers to disseminate pro-Iraq war messages to the American public. In this op-ed published in the Asheville Citizen-Times on June 27, Outreach Coordinator Ashley Hoffman explains how the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is fighting back against the administration's spin through its own Military Outreach Program.

The Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Iraq war supplemental funding bill cleared its final hurdle by passing the Senate on June 26. Included in the bill was a critical waiver of the Glenn Amendment. This waiver was necessary to allow U.S. technical and financial assistance to North Korea. Without the waiver, progress on North Korea's nuclear program would have been delayed because of America's inability to fulfill its promises.

Iraqi leaders have not been shy about publicly expressing their opposition to the proposed long-term agreement between the United States and Iraq. This resource provides a list of Iraqis who oppose the agreement and links to their statements.

The Bush administration and Iraq war supporters trumpet the surge as a success, since the number of violent incidents and casualties has indeed dropped. Yet such an assessment conveniently ignores the lack of political progress by the Iraqi government, which was the whole point of the surge in the first place. In its latest report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concludes that the Bush administration has overstated gains in Iraq.

General David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency guidance document contains many useful prescriptions, but it does not offer the strategic guidance that is still missing from U.S. policy toward Iraq. Despite recent tactical successes, we still don't have an answer to Petraeus's haunting question: "Tell me how does this end?"

With the aim of restoring America's standing in the eyes of the world, a bipartisan group of high-level former administration officials, retired military leaders, World War II military interrogators and religious leaders of many faiths are releasing today a blueprint to re-establish our values and moral principles.

The U.S.-India nuclear deal has been delayed since last summer. For almost nine months, the deal has been in limbo due to opposition from Indian political parties. Over the next week, key decisions will be made by India about what it wants to do next. In this new policy update, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Director Leonor Tomero summarizes recent events and addresses the near- and long-term prospects of the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

On June 18, the Government Accountability Office agreed with a protest by Boeing which argued that the Air Force made errors when it awarded a $40 billion contract to Northrop-Grumman earlier this year for the production of the new KC-45 airborne tanker aircraft. In this new fact sheet, Military Policy Fellow Christopher Hellman explains the basics of the tanker contract and GAO's review process.

The past decade has seen incredible growth in the amount of money spent by the United States on its national defense. But DOD can only recover from the past and present, while preparing for the future, if it fixes the acquisitions process and starts giving American taxpayers the return-on-investment they deserve. Steps must be taken right away to ameliorate the crisis in weapons acquisitions.

On June 10, the Center's Iran Policy Analyst Carah Ong coordinated a "Time to Talk to Iran" event and press conference on Capitol Hill for the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran. Watch the video about the event produced by the Real News Network.

The Senate Armed Services Committee released its markup of S. 3001, the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill, on May 1, 2008. S. 3001, as reported to the full Senate by the Armed Services Committee, fully funds the administration's $612.5 billion FY2009 National Defense request. As part of this total, the Committee authorized $70 billion in additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As is usually the case in Iraq, the significance of recent events is more than the sum of its parts. In this web commentary, Military Policy Analyst Travis Sharp goes beyond the headlines to examine what is really motivating negotiations on the U.S.-Iraq long-term agreement. American and Iraqi motives

On Tuesday, June 10, 2008, the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI), a coalition of organizations including the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and the Enough Fear Campaign organized an innovative “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference on Capitol Hill. The goal of the event was to advocate and show support for a diplomatic solution to the rising tensions between the United States and Iran.

"The current rumor here in Washington is that Bush will attack after the November elections so it won't hurt the Republican nominee politically. Many around him say he feels he has to do something before he leaves office," a campaign organizer, Carah Ong of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, told the New York Sun. "Part of this is to raise the fact that a military attack is likely and it needs to be prevented."

This collection of quotes highlights prominent calls by military officials, elected officials, and international civil society for diplomacy with Iran.

The past eight years of the Bush administration have been disastrous for arms control and nonproliferation initiatives. However, the next President can make significant progress in repairing the damage and moving these important issues forward. In this memo to John McCain and Barack Obama, Policy Fellow Jeff Lindemyer outlines four important goals for the next President.

The neglected humanitarian emergency suggests the need for a new strategy in Iraq. Given the nature of the Iraqi crisis, this new strategy will undoubtedly require an expansive role for the United Nations. If peacekeeping efforts were to be integrated into the U.N. mandate for Iraq, a host of positive improvements could come about.

In this letter to the editor of Washington Times, Scoville Fellow Kingston Reif points out that the minimal benefits of an Indian missile defense system are heavily outweighed by its costs.

These two documents relate to a study requested by the Department of Energy on the proliferation resistance of materials in advanced nuclear fuel cycles.

On May 27, Senator John McCain gave a major foreign policy address on nuclear non-proliferation. The Center's Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Leonor Tomero, examines the good, the bad, and the ugly in this new analysis. Tomero cuts through the campaign rhetoric to offer a clear-eyed, expert assessment of McCain's non-proliferation proposals.

What does Iran's recently submitted "Package for Constructive Negotiations" tell the UN and the international community? A full analysis here.

If the new $165.4 billion Iraq war funding supplemental is enacted into law, Congress will have approved approximately $864 billion in DOD, State/USAID, and VA funding for the Global War on Terror (GWOT) since 2001. This would cement Iraq and Afghanistan's place as the second costliest conflict in U.S. history.

The House Armed Services Committee completed its markup of the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill (HR 5658) on May 15, 2008. The marked up bill recommends an overall authorization level of $601.4 billion, the amount requested by the administration.

If the new $168.4 billion Iraq war funding supplemental is enacted into law, Congress will have approved approximately $864 billion in DOD, State/USAID, and VA funding for the Global War on Terror (GWOT) since 2001. This would cement Iraq and Afghanistan's place as the second costliest conflict in U.S. history.

In this opinion editorial published in the Knoxville News Sentinel, Senior Military Fellow Lt. Gen. Robert Gard argues that our government is not taking the necessary steps to prevent nuclear terrorism, even though it is one of the gravest threats to U.S. security. "It is incredible that our government is failing to accord the highest priority to taking the actions necessary to prevent terrorists from carrying out their threat to detonate a nuclear weapon on the territory of the United States, which would forever change our way of life," writes Gard.

In redefining the laws of war, the United States has overridden long-established international human rights law enshrined in United Nations detainment policies.

Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want?Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel, writes Center board member Frank von Hippel in this recent commentary.

In the wake of congressional hearings featuring Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker, it seems clear that Washington has focused its attention on a new nemesis: Iran. However, instead of demonizing Iran, the United States should focus on a diplomatic surge that includes direct, comprehensive, and unconditional talks not only on Iraq, but also on the range of outstanding issues between the two countries.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation commended nine senators who urged funding cuts last week to the Department of Energy's efforts to both resume nuclear spent fuel reprocessing in the United States and to reuse nuclear weapons-usable material in domestic and foreign power reactors pursuant to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

With the nation's eyes focused squarely on the presidential candidates, little attention has been paid to the growing list of influential members of Congress who plan to retire at the end of this year. These retirements will have important implications when it comes to arms control.

This short document outlines the principles that should govern U.S. policy toward Iran in the months ahead.

The State Department says the purpose of its so-called "democracy promotion" fund in Iran is to support programs that assist those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties. On the surface this seems like a noble goal. However, the program is universally rejected by its intended recipients in Iran because it has undermined their work for democracy and reform.

On April 16, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on Iraq war funding with Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle. Senators had every right to be upset: Nussle's testimony was riddled with misleading half-truths and outright inaccuracies.

Intelligent defense planning relies on requirements, tradeoffs, and a thorough evaluation of risk – not GDP – to determine need. Defense spending should remain subject to budgetary survival of the fittest.

The Administration proposes $6.8 billion in regular funding on bioweapons prevention and defense activities in FY2009. This is an increase of approximately $340 million (5.2%) over the amount appropriated by Congress for FY2008.

Ratification by the United States of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) requires 67 votes in favor in the Senate. On October 13, 1999, the Senate failed to ratify the CTBT in a vote of 51-48. This was the first security-related treaty in 80 years that the Senate did not ratify.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions. It was opened for signature on September 24, 1996, when it was signed by 71 States, including the five nuclear-weapon States. There are currently 178 Signatories.

Analysts at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation watched every minute of all four Petraeus-Crocker hearings on April 8 and 9. We sat through over 15 hours of live testimony. We also live blogged events as they were happening on the Iraq Insider blog. Here's what we think was most important.

On April 8 and 9, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will testify before Congress about the progress of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Here are ten tough questions members of Congress need to ask.

On March 11, 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated five Bush administration talking points about the need for missile defense. Not surprisingly, the evidence supporting Cheney's assertions is remarkably thin at best, nonexistent at worst.