The North Korean Nuclear Challenge, & More from CRS
North Korea’s rapidly maturing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile programs have prompted urgent reconsideration of what to do about them.
A new report from the Congressional Research Service identifies and examines seven possible directions for US policy, none of them risk-free or altogether satisfactory:
* maintaining the military status quo
* enhanced containment and deterrence
* denying DPRK acquisition of delivery systems capable of threatening the US
* eliminating ICBM facilities and launch pads
* eliminating DPRK nuclear facilities
* DPRK regime change
* withdrawing U.S. military forces
For a copy of the 67-page report (which was first reported by Bloomberg News), see The North Korean Nuclear Challenge: Military Options and Issues for Congress, October 27, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Niger: Frequently Asked Questions About the October 2017 Attack on U.S. Soldiers, October 27, 2017
Taiwan: Issues for Congress, October 30, 2017
Doing Business with Iran: EU-Iran Trade and Investment Relations, CRS Insight, October 25, 2017
Renegotiating NAFTA and U.S. Textile Manufacturing, October 30, 2017
The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, October 30, 2017
Department of Health and Human Services Halts Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) Payments, CRS Legal Sidebar, October 26, 2017
GAO Issues Opinions on Applicability of Congressional Review Act to Two Guidance Documents, CRS Insight, October 25, 2017
Treasury Proposes Rule That Could Deliver a “Death Sentence” to Chinese Bank, CRS Legal Sidebar, October 30, 2017
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.