PONI Live Debate: U.S. Nuclear Targeting

For the Q&A please visit: forms.gle/3p1Rgi3zCBMj4yqDA
The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) Live Debate Series is back! The PONI Debate Series was started in 2009 to have a more dynamic and free flowing exchange of ideas, resulting in an enriched and focused examination of critical issues.
We are pleased to invite you to a live debate on U.S. Nuclear Targeting. The Strategic Posture Commission Report called for modifying the U.S. nuclear forces to address the possibility that China will field counterforce-capable missiles, a threat that U.S. strategic forces face on par with Russia. There is an ongoing fundamental debate on the U.S. nuclear targeting policy of counterforce and whether it is sufficient for maintaining deterrence.
Debate Question: Should the US maintain its current nuclear targeting policy of holding at risk China’s and Russia’s leaders, nuclear command-and-control capabilities, military forces, and war supporting industry (WSI), or should it shift to an approach that focuses solely on conventional forces and WSI?
Join Mr. Franklin Miller, Principal at the Scowcroft Group, and Dr. James Acton, Jessica T. Mathews Chair and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a live debate moderated by Dr. Heather W. Williams, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues. PONI Mid-Career Stephanie Stapleton, Research Analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses will be the discussant. The debate will take place on January 25th, 10:00am-11:00am ET at CSIS and will be live-streamed.
This event is made possible through general support to the Project on Nuclear Issues.
---------------------------------------------
A nonpartisan institution, CSIS is the top national security think tank in the world.
Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.
Want to see more videos and virtual events? Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: cs.is/2dCfTve
Follow CSIS on:
• Twitter: csis
• Facebook: CSIS.org
• Instagram: csis

[@Jeffrey_Liu_]

Only 17:55 into the video and I'm already convinced this discussion was sorely needed. Thank you, CSIS, for (re)starting conversations that matter. The onus is now on us, the audience, to use this info to help make the right decisions and make a difference. Each of us is responsible; there are no bystanders in nuclear war.

[@phil20_20]

Sochi first!

[@SHW5010]

I’m surprised nobody envoked the “use them or lose them” adagium, lest a forty-six-cent faulty chip on a circuit board causes a nuclear holocaust.

[@AA-ch5pd]

wow great comment. such insight.

[@richbattaglia5350]

Why did my comment get taken down? I drew comparisons between how America fought historically by selecting key targets in command and eliminating them. It is much more cost effective than ruining an economy of some nation through a drastic change in leadership.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

Most likely it was KZbin's spam/content filters. They're extremely oversensitive and inconsistent, and are very clearly set to err heavily on the side of false positives, so don't expect there to be much rhyme or reason behind why your comments are disappeared. For example I had a comment removed (on anther channel) apparently just because it made reference to a certain device invented by an eighteenth century French physician that's somewhat phonetically similar to "Ovaltine".

[@NathansHVAC]

the software uses a point scoring system. At a certain level, the comment is shadok banded. The next level is deleted. The highest level is theat to remove the account. Misspelling words really healps. Also, at leat 50% of the comments are from bots on anything related to waaaaaaars

[@JCResDoc94]

52:00 robots can launch counter strike. what could go wrong? _JC

[@NathansHVAC]

Wasn't there a trilogy movie about that?

[@JCResDoc94]

27:00 we dont have a 1st strike policy? what about the red october problem: more niukes around, the more we lose grip on them. if a lady can swim over from cuba in her 60s, we best keep norms as they are & rely on ambiguity. tho we can do that wo further build up. _JC

[@hussienalsafi1149]

☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️

[@JCResDoc94]

46:00 maybe he just slept in that day. we never consider things like that in analysis. _JC

[@user-kh4of8vj2w]

Mr. what are you thinking and saying, do you think Russia and China would sit down and allow you to target their infrastructures, without they doing same to your infrastructure. i'm sorry to tell you that all your arguements are one way as if you don't have infrastructures that they can target. what make you think that you are better of targeting their infrastructure and they would not do the same to you. Russia has the largest nuclear pile than any other country on earth.

[@paulhui3282]

I think the point is that from their point of view, attacking us and destroying our infrastructure would give them no benefit if their state and their ability to control it, ceases to exist, thus deterring them from a first strike.