.jpeg)
Former and current MacArthur Staff discuss the Foundation’s impact on the nuclear security and nonproliferation landscape.
Kennette Benedict, Director of MacArthur’s International Peace and Security program from 1991 to 2005, spoke with MacArthur’s Stephanie Platz, Managing Director of Programs, and Angela Schlater, Senior Program Officer, to reflect on MacArthur’s nuclear grantmaking. In this conversation, which we have lightly edited for clarity, they talk about how the Foundation first began supporting this area of work, its overall impact, and some of today’s challenges.
Following her time at MacArthur, Benedict served as the executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for 10 years. Today, she is a lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
How MacArthur Began Its Support of the Nuclear Field
Angela
It is so nice to welcome you back to MacArthur, Kennette. As an early leader of the Foundation’s International Peace and Security Program, which included our grantmaking to reduce nuclear threats, can you tell us about why and how the Foundation first chose to begin making grants in this area?
Kennette
In the early ‘80s, Jerry Wiesner, a MacArthur Board member, was very interested in reducing the risk and number of nuclear weapons. Approximately 70,000 nuclear weapons existed at the time—the great majority of them in the United States and the Soviet Union. Jerry felt we needed to look at nuclear weapons in a broader context, especially as the tensions escalated between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The first thing MacArthur pursued was efforts to strengthen and broaden the field to bring in fresh perspectives and new ideas. After the Vietnam War, many young people had decided not to go into international security because they were fed up with U.S. policy. At the time, nuclear weapons policy was focused on deterrence, so as tensions with the Soviet Union rose, President Reagan was talking about increasing our nuclear arms. With few new people entering the field, it felt like we were stuck in this singular mindset.
“With few new people entering the field, it felt like we were stuck in this singular mindset.”
With this in mind, MacArthur supported fellowships at major universities; scholars outside those major universities through the Social Science Research Council; and an individual research and writing program for journalists, activists, and independent analysts. It was a large investment in the work of young people in the field.
Jerry thought that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows would ask “rude questions,” as he put it. He believed they would be the engine of change and force established scholars to consider new questions.
The Impact of MacArthur’s Nuclear Grantmaking
Stephanie
You are particularly well positioned to tell us about some of the earliest effects of MacArthur’s nuclear grantmaking. Can you tell us about how this support impacted the institutions that are now leaders in the nuclear field?
Kennette
The investments MacArthur made inspired others to create and expand institutions that are vital to the nuclear field today.
Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation was a tiny little program when MacArthur began supporting it, but it grew and became more visible over time with the Foundation’s support. MacArthur gave some of the first funding to the Belfer Center at Harvard University in 1984 and later made the first grant to Harvard to support their Managing the Atom project.
Other key institutions developed with the help of MacArthur too. The Monterey Institute of International Studies, which was created after the end of the Cold War, has trained a lot of young people in nuclear nonproliferation policy. The Cold War International History Project, which is now at the Wilson Center, has brought the lessons of the Cold War to life, especially the failures of deterrence. And, the Federation of American Scientists, which used Freedom of Information Act requests to learn and publish how many nuclear weapons the U.S. owns, provides vital information to the nuclear field, journalists, and the public.
All these institutions grew and developed with the help of MacArthur’s support.
Angela
The growth and development of these institutions, along with others, paved the way for one of the most impactful moments in MacArthur’s nuclear grantmaking: the development of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Can you talk about how this key achievement came about?
Kennette
The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program was one of the biggest policy successes to which MacArthur’s grantmaking contributed. The Foundation funded a number of people and projects that created an ecosystem that allowed this idea to gain momentum and change the global landscape of nuclear threats.
A Russian cruise missile submarine is dismantled in Severodvinsk, Russia, a result of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
MacArthur helped seed the idea of cooperative security by supporting the work of several leaders in the field as they explored this topic. With funding from the Foundation, John Steinbruner, Janne Nolan, Ash Carter, and Bill Perry all published papers and books about cooperative security, which encouraged countries to work together to solve common problems rather than threatening adversaries to achieve national security.
MacArthur and others were also funding the Congressional Leadership Program at the time. It brought together congressional leaders, who typically were more focused on domestic policy, to talk about international security issues. During one of these gatherings around 1992, MacArthur-supported experts began talking about cooperative security with Senators Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Richard Luger (R-IN), developing the foundation of what would become the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
The first step of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program was to encourage states to see that their security could be better ensured through cooperation rather than through threats and huge weapons arsenals. The next step was to help Russia dismantle their nuclear weapons, using congressional funding secured by Senators Nunn and Lugar, while the U.S. dismantled its nuclear weapons simultaneously.
It was a huge success. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, over 28,000 strategic nuclear warheads were deactivated in Russia and 13,000 in the United States. With joint participation of Russia and the United States, 75 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons were dismantled and stored.
Stephanie
During your time at MacArthur, you strengthened MacArthur’s support for cultivating a pipeline of talent into the nuclear field. At a time when other people were not thinking about the need to increase gender and racial diversity in the sciences, you were very focused on it. I would love to hear how you approached the need to diversify and your reflections on the field’s progress in the years since?
Kennette
MacArthur supported an amazing program where students from Chicago State University went to the University of Minnesota for a six-week boot camp. We heard it was life changing for many of them, but I wish it had included more than two universities. I am really impressed with the emphasis on diversity now in the field.
I, like too many people, did not realize for a long time that many civil rights leaders opposed nuclear weapons. I went back to read Dr. Martin Luther King's Nobel speech, and he discusses nuclear weapons. African Americans have been paying attention to this topic for a long time, and their perspective is important. Many African American leaders understood the harms that were happening to people in Africa from the nuclear testing, such as in Algeria. I have had Native students who are interested in looking more at how testing has affected Indigenous people. This is a whole area of work that is really ripe for further action and should be an important part of the conversation.
Reflecting on Today’s Challenges
Angela
We find ourselves today in a place that echoes where we were when MacArthur first began its nuclear grantmaking with tensions rising between nuclear states. How have things changed, or not changed, since you first began working on nuclear risk reduction?
Kennette
I think we may have, in a sense, lost sight of the need to see nuclear weapons in a broader context as there has been a continued focus on the weapons themselves.
Yes, the weapons are absolutely key. They are existential threats. But it is people who control the weapons. In order to reduce the risk, we have to reduce the tension. So I think focusing too much on nuclear weapons alone has blinded us to some of the context in which these terrible weapons are held, viewed, and understood.
Remaining Hopeful
Angela
Amid today’s nuclear landscape, how do you remain hopeful?
Kennette
A few things keep me hopeful. The policy analysis and the scholarly research happening today is just fabulous. There are really smart people working on this topic, and they are doing very good work. The Research Network on Rethinking Nuclear Deterrence at Harvard, which MacArthur helped launch its support, is bringing in new people and ideas.
“As was the case in 1982, the reasons for this new interest are terrible, but here we are, so let’s take advantage of the moment.”
The war in Ukraine has really raised awareness about nuclear weapons in a way we have not seen for 25 or 30 years. My students today are extremely engaged and want to know more. As was the case in 1982, the reasons for this new interest are terrible, but here we are, so let’s take advantage of the moment.
On nuclear danger, we still have a “democratic deficit” where the interests of the public are not well represented by elected officials, and the only way to address this is to get a lot more people involved. In the past, we have seen progress when people were more engaged, like in the 1950s with the anti-testing movement and in 1980s with the Nuclear Freeze movement. I am hopeful that there might be similar kind of energy now that we can draw upon.
