Young Russian and U.S.-based scholars from a variety of science and social science disciplines met at Stanford to tackle emerging issues in nuclear security.

How can a new generation of scholars from around the world work together to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, from nuclear terrorism to developments in North Korea? A summit hosted at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation sought answers to that question—and more.

The third meeting of the Stanford-National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute) Young Professionals Nuclear Forum, held May 2-4 at CISAC, brought together young Russian and U.S.-based scholars from a variety of science and social science disciplines to explore how to use thoughtful, cooperative approaches to solve these pressing international nuclear security issues.

Dr. Siegfried Hecker, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, emeritus, and an internationally recognized expert in nuclear risk reduction, organized the summit. Opening the forum, Dr. Hecker stressed that while U.S.-Russian relations continue to be complicated and cooperation in the nuclear sphere has virtually come to a stop, “the younger generation of nuclear professionals should be prepared to collaborate again once the relations between the two governments turn for the better.”

The group of Stanford and Russian scholars took part in two day-long exercises. Day one included an exercise in risk analysis of the threat of radiological terrorism from the perspective of the attacker, tasking the participants with comparing the risks of carrying out an attack using a radiological dispersal device versus carrying out an attack on a spent nuclear fuel cask. On the second day, scholars engaged in a detailed simulation of U.S. and North Korean approaches to the denuclearization of North Korea to be discussed at the proposed June summit between the U.S. and North Korea. CISAC affiliates Larry Brandt, Chaim Braun, and former national lab experts Len Connell (SNL) and James Toevs (LANL) joined Dr. Hecker to advise the teams.

Working in mixed groups of Russian and Stanford scholars, one group represented the U.S. perspective; the other the North Korean. They explored the risks of maintaining or eliminating different nuclear facilities and activities in North Korea. In the exercise, it quickly became clear that the North Korean team was aiming to keep a hedge for the future and not give away all nuclear options. Meanwhile, the U.S. team sought to eliminate much of the immediate risk posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, claiming some peaceful nuclear facilities and activities might eventually be possible but they cannot allow North Korea the ability to reconstitute its weapons quickly.

So—who won the exercise?

For Dr. Hecker: “nobody won.” That wasn’t the point. But, he said,  “what was really interesting was that they came up with really reasonable compromises—on both the North Korean and American sides.”

View photos from the summit

About CISAC

The Center for International Security and Cooperation tackles the most critical security issues in the world today. Founded in 1983, CISAC has built on its research strengths to better understand an increasingly complex international environment. It is part of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Though scholarly research, fellowships, and teaching, CISAC is educating the next generation of leaders in international security and creating policy impact on a wide variety of issues to help build a safer world.

The recent developments in North Korea's summit diplomacy and the feasibility of CVID (complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement) of the nuclear program have received unprecedented responses, both optimistic and pessimistic, from the international community.

Please stay tuned to this page for APARC researchers' commentary and analysis on the CVID of the North Korean nuclear program through articles published in various news media.

Latest Commentaries:

How to Keep the Ball Rolling on North Korean Negotiations (East Asia Forum, May 2, 2019)

Why Walking Away from Kim's Deal May Have Been the Right Move (Axios, February 28, 2019)

Success of Second Trump-Kim Summit Will Lie in the Details (Axios, February 26, 2019)

The Second Trump-Kim Summit Must Settle the Big Questions (The National Interest, February 19, 2019)

Normalising, Not Denuclearising, North Korea (East Asia Forum, October 3, 2018)

Moon-Kim Summit in Pyongyang Was Promising, But No Game Changer (Axios.com, September 19, 2018)

Towards Normality: What's Next with North Korea? (East Asia Forum Quarterly, September 2018)

The Singapore Summit Empowers South Korean Chaebols (The New Republic, June 26, 2018)

Korean Elections Give Moon Momentum, But Could Shift U.S. Alliance (Axios, June 14, 2018)

Despite Lack of Plan, North Korea Denuclearization Could Still Happen (Axios, June 12, 2018)

Ambassador Kathleen Stephens shares reactions following the Trump-Kim summit, including her thoughts on President Trump's pledge to cancel military exercises on the Korean Peninsula (KQED's Forum, 06/12/18)

With North Korea, Let's Not Forget the Big Picture (The Diplomat, June 8, 2018)

"[T]he mere prospect of the June summit has already enhanced Kim's status on the international stage," observes APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin, Trump needs leadership and allies to salvage the North Korea summit (Axios, May 25, 2018)

Stanford Scholars Discuss Diplomacy’s Future after U.S.-North Korea Summit Is Canceled (May 24, 2018)

Dan Sneider understands Japanese skepticism of North Korea's conversion to disarmament in Japan, China and South Korea Get Together (The Economist, May 10, 2018)

Future of U.S. troops in South Korea uncertian (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2018)

Related articles:

A new start or a rerun on the Korean Peninsula? (East Asia Forum, May 6, 2018)

Stanford Panel Discusses North-South Summit and What Happens Next (APARC News, April 28, 2018)

North Korea Summit Diplomacy (The Diplomat, March 30, 2018)

Moon's Bet on the Olympics: What Comes Next? (East Asia Forum, February 18, 2018)

"Moon's proposal of a trilateral summit between the two Koreas and the United States, undermining China's influence, turned out to be nothing more than a pipe dream," said researchers at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center in a recently published article. "The series of summits that began with Kim's visit to Beijing should lead to Four Party Talks — involving the two Koreas, the United States, and China."

The full article in The Diplomat is available here.

Under the guidance of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, thirteen members of Congress convened at Stanford University from March 2-5 to discuss policy options regarding the current North Korea crisis. The representatives deliberated with scholars and practitioners to acquire a better understanding of North Korea and its ruling regime, review the regional actors and their interests, assess the range of potential solutions to the crisis, and determine the role of Congress on this issue.

A report summarizing the program’s dialogue is now available for download. In addition to providing non-attributed comments from the proceedings, the document also includes the itinerary for the three days, the names of participants, as well as a collection of relevant publications.

The Aspen Institute Congressional Program was established in 1983 by former U.S. Senator Dick Clark. The program is for members of the United States Congress, and is both nongovernmental and nonpartisan in design. The program gives senators and representatives the opportunity to delve into complex and critical public policy issues with internationally recognized experts. Lawmakers are given the opportunity to explore policy alternatives in off-the-record settings, while simultaneously building relationships crucial to finding solutions.