strategic plans, therefore, need to take these limitations into account and plan redundancies accordingly.

The application of DOD CTR to CTR 2.0 may also draw on elements of large CTR 1.0 programs. For example, DOD CTR provided environmental monitoring laboratories (and associated training) related to chemical weapons destruction in Russia and biological weapons facility dismantlement in Kazakhstan. DOD CTR’s experience with this kind of project may make it a good candidate for establishing a similar monitoring capability and training program associated with the nuclear dismantlement activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) when conditions exist that would permit engagement there.

CTR 2.0 strategic planners will need to measure where DOD CTR will be welcome as a partner and where it will not. Although some countries may appreciate U.S. military involvement, others may view the inclusion of DOD CTR as an attempt to dismantle military assets, particularly in early stages of engagement. For example, the committee learned that conservative elements in India objected to Section 109 of the Hyde Act2 because it called for the establishment of a CTR program. That was interpreted by some Indians as an attempt to dismantle India’s nuclear capability. Even though the title of the section was changed and the intent was to develop nuclear nonproliferation cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE), suspicions lingered. As stated elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that establishing the initial point of engagement will be a critical step for any CTR 2.0 activity and careful choices must be made about how to launch an effort most effectively.

Finding 4-1: DOD CTR will be an indispensable part of CTR 2.0, and will take the lead in some programs, while playing an active support role in others.


The committee believes that DOD can make major contributions to meeting security challenges in the Middle East, Asia, the DPRK, or other regions and countries through skillful application of its established expertise and the development of new approaches. The 2009 Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence characterizes the region from the Middle East to South Asia as an “Arc of Instability” and “the locus for many of the challenges facing the United States in the twenty-first century.”3 This assessment argues in favor of looking closely at what engagement opportunities exist or may be developed under CTR 2.0.


U.S. Congress. Public Law 109-401. Available as of March 2009 at|TOM:/bss/d109query.html|.


Dennis C. Blair. 2009. Testimony at the 2009 Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 8 pp.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement