A detailed new portrait of China’s nuclear weapons program is beginning to emerge into the public domain following years of pre-publication conflict between author Danny B. Stillman and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Stillman, a former Los Alamos intelligence officer, was able to learn more about China’s nuclear weapons infrastructure than any other American, particularly since the Chinese, for their own reasons, welcomed his attention. Over the course of numerous visits in the 1990s, he was able to inspect secret nuclear facilities that had been completely off limits to foreigners.
But when he proposed to publish his findings, the Central Intelligence Agency stepped in to block publication. Through the prepublication review process, the CIA objected to approximately 15% of Stillman’s manuscript, which it said contained classified information. A court later affirmed that view. (“CIA Blocks Book on Chinese Nuclear Weapons,” Secrecy News, April 4, 2007). Now a redacted version of the manuscript is scheduled for publication early next year.
A preview of some of the book’s findings with an overview of Stillman’s interactions with Chinese nuclear weapons scientists appears in the current issue of Physics Today. See “The Chinese Nuclear Tests, 1964-1996” by Thomas C. Reed, Physics Today, September 2008.
Some specialists dispute certain assertions that appear in the article, including a surprising claim that China performed non-explosive nuclear tests for France in the 1990s. See “Report Says China Offered Widespread Help on Nukes” by Dan Vergano, USA Today, August 29, 2008.
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.