American Security Project

On Wednesday, March 13 the American Security Project hosted an event entitled “Fusion Power: A 10-Year Plan to Energy Security.” The event coincided with the release of ASP’s newest White Paper on fusion power.

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren gave a brief introduction where she noted that Congress’s impact on fusion power had stalled. However, she is a firm believer in the benefits of fusion power. She noted that in August of 2012 she released a letter signed by over 100 members of Congress signatures showing support for fusion science. Her message was clear: fusion research is important, and we must give it the funding that it deserves.

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.), a member of ASP’s Board of Directors, gave a short presentation dealing with energy security problems and American leadership. He noted six energy challenges that the United States faces: growing global demand; the security of energy supplies; economic stability; environmental sustainability; an aging infrastructure; and declining American R&D investment. He was adamant in saying that the United States must take up a new leadership position in the new energy economy.

Next, Dr. Stewart Prager, the Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, discussed the basics of fusion energy and why it is critical to America’s long-term energy security. He stated that fusion is an efficient energy source because it is nearly inexhaustible, available to all nations, produces zero greenhouse gases, and impervious to nuclear meltdowns. Still, producing power from fusion is difficult – one of the most challenging scientific endeavors ever undertaken.

However, there has been much progress made in this field. Scientists routinely produce plasma at very high temperatures. In the 1990’s, optimism over fusion power spread around the world, when fusion researchers achieved several significant milestones. Fusion scientists had generated exponential increases in fusion power, but progress stalled when funding was cut.

Since then, the American fusion program has slowed and the U.S. is alone among industrialized countries in its absence of an official roadmap to commercialization of fusion power. The United States is already experiencing a “brain drain” of fusion scientists to other nations that are investing more aggressively in fusion.Dr. Prager stressed that a decrease in domestic funding would destroy U.S. fusion projects, as well as our ability to benefit from the ITER project in France, an internationally-backed experimental fusion facility currently under construction. Falling to a second tier in fusion power would mean that America’s competitive position would suffer, both economically and scientifically. Thus, it is imperative that we invest in fusion power in order to realize its massive benefits.

ASP Senior Fellow Andrew Holland gave the last presentation. He discussed the recent White Paper on fusion power, and he offered a number of suggestions in order to streamline its progress. He stated that the “business as usual” plans for fusion energy commercialization,

With so much effort focused on fighting partisan battles, lawmakers in Washington are shortchanging important debates necessary to shore up American competitiveness.

Such are the stakes right now that Congress needs to put politics aside so that policy dialogue can take precedence, Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said in an interview.

“If we don’t do that there’s really nothing that will work for us over the long term,” she said. “We’re going to have short-term solutions … that’s going to hurt us and our competitiveness internationally.”

Gov. Whitman, an American Security Project board member and president of the Whitman Strategy Group, said the U.S. is presenting a puzzling picture to the rest of the world.

“They’ve never seen America where it doesn’t have its act together fiscally,” she said.

The sequester is not helping. The $85 billion in budget cuts, however, actually blur understanding of the U.S. fiscal picture and also risk doing long-term damage.

“There are going to be cuts to those aspects of the federal government that actually deal with smart growth and planning,” she said.

This poses a challenge at the state level, particularly in light of the costly damage of serious weather events recently seen in the case of Hurricane Sandy. Rebuilding quickly is a priority for economic reasons, she said, but it has to be done with the right approach or there is the risk of setting conditions for a repeat disaster.

“If we don’t rebuild smart and we don’t do it in a different way … all we are doing is setting ourselves up for the potential of the next big storm wiping everything out and the taxpayers being saddled with an enormous debt that they are going to have to pay in order to rebuild,” she said.

In the near term, more visible signs of sequester’s toll such as closing airport control towers or reducing the ranks of the TSA may force the public to come to grips with the current state of affairs in Washington.

“It will certainly get the American people to put a whole lot of pressure on Congress to end this,” she said. “That might make it come to a conclusion sooner than later.”

Click below to listen to the full interview:

Check out ASP’s White Paper on American Competitiveness that discusses these issues further:

 

Read our Blogs and Listen to our other podcasts in the series:

Podcasts:

Living with uncertainty in the defense industry

Adm. William Fallon (Ret.) on sequestration and American Competitiveness

Sequestration – what’s happening in the States

American Competitiveness and National Security – Podcast

Blog Posts:

Harvard Business School survey finds more pessimism about U.S. competitiveness

Competitiveness – Education: What most schools don’t teach

On Tuesday, March 5 ASP hosted the event “NASA’s Public Diplomacy – Improving Relations on Earth by Exploring Space.” Speakers included Kent G. Bress, the Director of Aeronautics and Cross Agency Support Division at NASA’s Office of International and Interagency Relations and  Dr. Vaughan Turekian, Chief International Officer at American Association for the Advancement of Science. ASP’s Public Diplomacy fellow Matthew Wallin moderated the event.

Dr. Turekian began by stating that the trick to getting science and public diplomacy working together is ensuring  that the United States has the best scientists to back up our programs. He continued to explain that science diplomacy works effectively  because even when the world disagrees with the United States on other platforms, other states respect our scientific endeavors enough to find common ground.

Kent Bress then spoke on NASA’s role in public diplomacy and science. NASA ( The National Aeronautical and Space Administration) is a government agency originally created to contest the Soviet Union’s Space Program back in 1958, now with a modern $17 billion annual budget. Bress argued that NASA was founded as an extension of foreign policy and has carried that nature with it throughout the decades.  A few of NASA’s public diplomacy measures include international education, outreach, and social media efforts. NASA’s primary twitter account has over 3.5 million twitter followers, making it the most popular government twitter feed behind The White House.

Mr. Bress argues that there are some guidelines that NASA must employ in terms of public diplomacy and its work with other countries. Some of these guidelines include a prohibition on the exchange of funds, lawful consistency with U.S. laws and regulations, international partners must generally be government agencies, and  projects or partnerships must have scientific or technical merit and benefit the U.S. mission.

Currently, NASA has roughly 600 international agreements and several international programs including the International Space Station and the Mars Curiosity Rover.

Bress also iterated several of NASA’s core goals which include human space flight, aeronautics, space science, and the completion of the James Webb Space Telescope.

To join us for any of our other events, please check out the events page on our website.

Scroll down for slides, audio, and video of the event!

International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy at NASA by The American Security Project

 

 

Click below to listen to the event:

 

As Washington girds for automatic spending cuts, it is already clear the U.S. is going to pay a price for the political fumbling that led to sequestration.

“It just perpetuates the idea that we just can’t seem to get our act together,” said Adm. William Fallon (Ret.), former Central Command and Pacific Command commander and an American Security Project board member, in an interview. Not only does sequestration impact America’s ability to compete globally, it also undercuts the country’s standing with our allies.

Already, within the international business community there is a perception that America’s competitiveness is slipping. The World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. 7th on its Global Competitiveness Index, down from 1st in less than five years.

In an interview, Adm. Fallon pointed out that sequester will likely cost the country more money in long term. Deferring maintenance of ships and aircraft will end up requiring spending two to three times as much money as originally would have needed to be spent, he said.

“It’s wasted money, money not going to the right places. That’s the legacy sequester is going to leave,” he said. Military readiness is also going to be impacted, he noted, echoing a point recently driven home by the Pentagon’s top officers.

Shoring up America’s education system so that it offers a real foundation for success and getting the country’s budget closer to being balanced are critical.

“If we can get a grip on these two things I think we’d be well on the way to putting ourselves back where we ought to be,” he said.

Click below to listen top the interview:

 

Check out ASP’s White Paper on American Competitiveness:

 

Read our Blogs and Listen to our other podcasts in the series:

Podcasts:

Sequestration – what’s happening in the States

American Competitiveness and National Security – Podcast

Blog Posts:

Harvard Business School survey finds more pessimism about U.S. competitiveness

Competitiveness – Education: What most schools don’t teach

Sequestration – damage to American competitiveness

Energy R&D Critical to American Competitiveness

 

Check out our other Podcasts

American Competitiveness and National Security 

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The chang...

Sequestration is a big issue, and a big problem.

Lisa Lambert from Reuters joins us discussing the issues and how they impact the States.

Lisa is the country’s leading expert on local government and State finance issues.

As we have discussed on our blog before, there are big national security implications to sequestration – Lisa sets out what they mean across the country.

Click to listen below:

 

Also check our August Cole’s later post on sequestration

Check out our other Podcasts

American Competitiveness and National Security 

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development

Energy Choices, Climate Change and CAFE Fuel Standards

A Farewell from Dr. Jim Ludes and a Discussion on National Security

At a time when the United States’ national debt dominates public discourse, what other long-term issues are determining America’s international competitiveness? When other countries’ strengths in education outpace the U.S., at what point is national security affected? 

Yesterday experts on American Competitiveness discussed the key issues involved and how we can overcome the challenges we face.

Click below to listen to the discussion:

A Panel Discussion Featuring:

*

Brigadier General Stephen Cheney U.S. Marine Corps, Ret., CEO American Security Project

*

Professor Jan Rivkin Strategy Unit Chair, Harvard Business School, Co-leader, United States Competitiveness Project

*

August Cole National Security Analyst, Senior Analyst, Wikistrat

 

The Event was hosted by:

 

Check Out ASP’s White Paper on American Competitiveness click below:

 

Read more about ASP’s work on American Competitiveness here

 

Listen to other podcasts :

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

On January 28, ASP and the Washington Clean Technology Alliance (WCTA) co-hosted an event in Seattle, WA entitled “Clean Energy: The New Public Policy Reality.” The event featured several prominent speakers, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs; Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee; Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09); as well as ASP’s own BGen Steve Cheney and Andrew Holland.

Congressman Adam Smith spoke first on the panel, touching on the critical role that energy plays in military operations. At the same time, Rep. Smith discussed the threat of climate change to U.S. national security. As the largest consumer of energy in the United States, the Department of Defense, Rep. Smith notes, can drive energy innovation. To that end, DoD’s investments in alternative sources of fuels are essential. While there are significant upfront costs, he believes the U.S. will reap the benefits over the long-term.

Next, BGen Cheney USMC (Ret.) spoke about the vulnerability that the military faces from its dependence on fossil fuels. For example, he said, despite a slight decline in fuel

consumption over the past five years, the military’s fuel expenditures skyrocketed 381% over the same time frame. He also touched on the threat of climate change to national security. Gen. Cheney elaborated on ASP’s role in finding bipartisan solutions to energy security and climate change.

ASP’s Andrew Holland went into detail on the role of biofuels as an alternative fuel source to oil. After all, oil will run out eventually, and the military is investing in long-lived assets.  For example, some planes that DoD is purchasing today will last beyond 2050 – and we do not know whether we will be producing significant quantities of oil in four or five decades. For this reason, it is essential that the U.S. military find alternative sources of fuel for its fleet.

 

You can find further details of the conference here – and GOv Jay Inslee’s speech here

To listen to the full audio, click here.

On January 28, ASP and the Washington Clean Technology Alliance (WCTA) cohosted an event in Seattle, WA entitled “Clean Energy: The New Public Policy Reality.” The event featured several prominent speakers, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs; Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee; Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09); as well as ASP’s own BGen Steve Cheney and Andrew Holland.

Governor Inslee spoke about the importance of clean energy and how it is driving economic development, particularly in his state of Washington. However, he also stated that the U.S. military is making significant progress in rolling out clean energy. For example, he commended the Navy for its efforts to incorporate biofuels into their ships and planes. Below is a full audio file of his speech.

To see a full agenda of the conference, click here.

To listen to Gov. Inslee’s whole speech, click here.

A panel of distinguished military leaders joined ASP for a discussion of the costs and consequences of military action against Iran. ASP CEO BGen. Stephen Cheney (USMC, ret.), Admiral William Fallon (USN, ret.), and LtGen. Frank Kearney (USA, ret.) explored the strategic and tactical aspects of the military option, the expected costs and effects of a strike, and the role of military versus diplomatic and economic efforts.

Click to watch the event video:

The panelists, all signers of the Iran Project report, “Weighing the Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran,” noted that a clear understanding of the potential risks and results of the military option is key to making informed policy decisions.

BGen. Cheney and Adm. Fallon discussed the tactical aspects of a military strike, noting that the number, location, and fortifications of Iran’s nuclear facilities present a challenge for military planners.

“The bottom line is, it’s not going to be a one-time shot. It’s not going to be like ’81 or even 2007,” said Adm. Fallon, referring to previous attacks on nuclear facilities.

LtGen. Kearney emphasized the importance of clearly articulating the goal of a potential strike. “As a military leader, the first thing I ask policymakers is, ‘What is your objective?”’ he said.

LtGen. Kearney added that the military option, economic pressure, and diplomatic negotiations are all important elements of a balanced approach to the Iran nuclear challenge. The military option is important leverage in the nuclear negotiations, and therefore must remain on the table, he concluded.

Mutual mistrust between Iran and the U.S. is a major barrier to progress in nuclear negotiations, Adm. Fallon emphasized. The disconnect between Iranian rhetoric on its nuclear ambitions and ongoing enrichment activities, in excess of the amounts needed for civilian purposes, is puzzling for U.S. leaders. On the other side, Iran’s leadership views the U.S. objective as regime change, and is therefore suspicious of overtures.

“It comes back to trust,” Fallon said, adding “Tamping down the rhetoric is a good place to start [making progress on negotiations].”

Iran’s mistrust of U.S. motives could result in a military strike having some unintended consequences “You have to expect, as a military planner, one of their reactions could be that they’ll sprint towards nuclear weapon capability or increase rhetoric that they will,” LtGen. Kearney said.

On the question of where the Iran crisis will go next, the panelists agreed that a solution is possible, but does not seem imminent. The situation is likely to get worse before it gets better, LtGen. Kearney said. Adm. Fallon agreed, noting that both sides need incentives to come to a deal. As Iran’s enrichment program progresses, the window for diplomacy grows narrow, and pressure will build for both sides to find a solution.

Click here for the audio of the event:

Ellen Tauscher, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, recently spoke at the American Security Project on missile defense, the US-Russia relationship, and strategic stability.

Listen to the audio version of her talk and a lively Q&A here.

Ms. Tauscher, whose most recent government appointment was Special Envoy for Missile Defense and Strategic Stability, began by saying that we have “a lot to be optimistic about” in regards to the opportunity we now have to move forward with Russia.

Our relationship with Russia is a “large, dynamic, P-5” relationship that is important for myriad reasons. Iran, energy, and arms control and non-proliferation are all issues that we need to have Russian cooperation on, Ms. Tauscher said.

She alluded to the US – Russian relationship being in a “wait and see situation” that goes back to the Russian election a year ago. The Putin “election brought everything to a standstill.”  Now that the political situation has stabilized, and we have finished our election cycle, it is time to move forward with Russia, Ms. Tauscher continued.

The US wants assurances that Russia can become part of a European security system. Iran is the main European concern, and she stated that we have to share these concerns with the Russians. “Missile Defense is a network system where it is important to have friends involved in security.”

Ms. Tauscher said that a primary US strategic goal should be to build the kind of cooperative agreements with Russia that the US has with its European allies.

Within this broad framework is Ms. Tauscher’s theme of Mutually Assured Stability. The idea is to foster greater understanding of the other side’s intentions and capabilities, in both Russia and the US, by opening up communication and having a true dialogue with one another.

This can help foster a Russian relationship that is invested in European security, and may bring them back to the negotiating table on issues like the follow-on to the New START treaty.

During the question and answer session, Ms. Tauscher elucidated some of her earlier thoughts:

The US and Russia are “not foes, but we are not yet allies.” She reiterated that cooperation on New START, Iran and European security are all important administration objectives. She went on to say that it’s time to move the context of this relationship away from arms races by beginning a substantive dialogue.

“The old battle plan is not the same battle plan you are looking at now.” Russian overreliance on tactical nuclear weapons should be a signal to the US that some Russian officials are still acting and reacting according to a Cold War mentality.

She advocated the importance of a high number of interlocutors, and indicated that both sides have talented, experienced “players” that can bridge the gaps.

She also spoke quickly about US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. These are political weapons, she stated. They make our allies in Eastern Europe feel more secure, and there is an ongoing discussion about how to address that issue while moving those weapons out.

President Obama has not abandoned his Prague speech, she said. He is committed to making our nuclear arsenal more “safe, reliable and certifiable,” while at the same time making it more affordable and manageable.

Ms. Tauscher finished by touching on the importance of ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and that we want greater transparency from the Chinese on their stewardship and arsenal size reporting.

Click