ACE

Author: Grace Borges

  • Intro to Biden’s Infrastructure & Corporate Tax Plan

    Intro to Biden’s Infrastructure & Corporate Tax Plan

    Announced on March 31st, 2021, President Biden’s American Jobs Plan aims to rebuild America’s infrastructure while creating millions of new jobs and modernizing various sectors of the American economy. In addition to repairing the nation’s outdated roads, bridges, airports, and electric grids, the plan calls for investing in social services, promoting racial equity, boosting wages, and expanding high-speed internet access across the country. 

    With an eye towards meeting the challenges of climate change and an increasingly competitive China, the plan also endeavors to “innovate for the future” by jumpstarting manufacturing, improving job training programs, and revitalizing research & development into key technologies. 

    The bill calls for almost $2.3 trillion in new spending. In tandem with the American Jobs Plan, President Biden is proposing a new Made in American Tax Plan that would offset the infrastructure package’s hefty price tag and eventually reduce the ballooning budget deficit. By raising close to $2 trillion over 15 years, this plan would specifically:

    • Increase corporate tax rates from 21% to 28% (though this is still markedly lower from the 35% rate that existed before Trump’s 2017 tax reform bill);
    • Establish a global minimum tax of 15% on income earned overseas for U.S. companies;
    • Eliminate loopholes that encourage companies to move profits to overseas tax havens.

    The Biden administration is spearheading negotiations on a broader global minimum tax rate for corporations with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The goal of a global minimum tax rate is to establish a tax system where a company will pay a certain percentage of its profits in taxes to its home country, regardless of where those profits are being earned. In other words, an American company that moves some of its operations offshore to a low-tax jurisdiction would have to pay the US government the difference between their minimum rate and whatever the company paid on its overseas earnings. For example, if a company from a country with a global minimum rate of 15% earned overseas profits that were taxed at 5%, the government would be entitled to bring the company into compliance by charging it an additional 10%. This new global tax regime would apply to multinational companies irrespective of where they’re headquartered and hopefully deter countries from competing for business by lowering tax rates. 

    Proponents of this tax plan argue that not only will it reward investment at home by offering a tax credit to firms that move jobs back to the US, it will also incentivize investment in green energy and American manufacturing. Most notably, it would finally ensure US-based multinational firms, like Amazon & Netflix, pay their fair share by closing legal loopholes that corporations exploit to dodge paying federal taxes.

    Opponents of the tax plan cite the post-pandemic timing of the proposal as dangerous for a country trying to recover from a recession. They believe the tax increases will slow economic recovery and make the US a less attractive investment option on a global scale, especially after just lowering the corporate rate from 35% in 2017.

  • Intro to North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

    Intro to North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

    Read this page as a PDF

    North Korea has several motivations for pursuing nuclear weapons. First and foremost is security. Ever since the end of the Korean War and the bifurcation of the Korean Peninsula, the Kim regime has perceived an existential threat to their survival. With the US backing two of their closest enemies, Japan and South Korea, North Korea has had a longstanding concern that the West will eventually attempt to overthrow the authoritarian government and install a leader friendlier to democratic ideals and South Korea’s Western allies. Pyongyang has determined that the only way to prevent this from happening is to become a nuclear-armed power and uses this belief to justify having nuclear weapons as a way to guarantee protection against the US.  Not only does the North Korean government think that their nuclear weapons will deter attacks, but they also provide North Korea with the chance to achieve self-preservation and be militarily self-sufficient.

                Another motivation for developing nuclear weapons is legitimacy on the world stage. Since becoming a nuclear power in 2006, North Korea has shoehorned itself into a very small club of countries that have nuclear weapons and put itself to some degree on equal footing with them. Compared to other nations with nuclear weapons, North Korea is by far the least economically, technologically and socially developed. By elevating themselves to be in the same elite group as the United States, Russia and the UK, North Korea is able to upgrade its global status and have their demands as a nation taken seriously. 

    The legitimacy the Kim regime derives from their nuclear arsenal also allows them to engage in coercive diplomacy. Pyongyang’s military threats are usually issued in a conditional context, portraying them as a necessary response to any potential U.S. attacks. For example, in his 2018 New Year’s Day speech, Kim Jong-un said “As a responsible nuclear weapons state, our Republic will not use a nuclear weapon unless its sovereignty is encroached upon by any aggressive hostile forces with nukes.” This statements seems to allude to some sort of ‘no first use’ sentiment, however without a formal agreement saying as much, this notion has to be disregarded as bluster and propaganda. 

    North Korea is also motivated by the prestige and fear associated with nuclear weapons, both at home and abroad. Being perceived as strong and powerful has always been very important to the Kim regime, and photo-ops with President Trump have been widely successful in increasing Kim Jong-un’s leadership legitimacy within his own country. Moreover, North Korean state media frequently release photos of Kim attending missile parades and launches, often lauding him as the visionary and driving force behind the success of the program. By constructing an image of invincibility, Kim boosted his personal prestige and, by extension, the prestige of his regime. In addition to serving as propaganda, the continued showboating of their military capabilities perpetuates the fear instigated by the Kim regime. Kim Jong-un wouldn’t be seen as nearly as dangerous without his nukes.

  • Nuclear Weapons Design

    Nuclear-Weapons-Design_Final

  • Introduction to Nuclear History & the Manhattan Project

    Introduction to Nuclear History & the Manhattan Project

    The Manhattan Project was the code name for the confidential American led effort to develop a nuclear weapon during the Second World War. The initiative was spurred by intelligence reports that Germany had been developing nuclear weapons since the 1930’s and that Hitler was prepared to use them against the Allies.

    First convened in 1939, President Roosevelt created the Advisory Committee on Uranium as a science-leaning research center to study uranium enrichment and nuclear chain reactions.  In response to Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Army Corps of Engineers was diverted to supplement this research and the ACU eventually became the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), which had a significantly more militaristic bent.

    President Roosevelt authorized the creation of the Manhattan Project in 1942 to bring together the various research initiatives under one umbrella. This pulled in J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was a leading expert on nuclear fission. The name “Manhattan Project” came from the OSRD’s Manhattan Engineer District, named after the borough in which it was located.

    Manhattan Project research was relocated to the secretive Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, the creation of which was known as Project Y. In 1945, the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated in the New Mexican desert in what was called the Trinity Test. Scientists working under Oppenheimer created two distinct types of bombs: a uranium-based gun-type design called “Little Boy” and a plutonium-based implosion bomb named “Fat Man.” The success of the Trinity Test led to nuclear weapons becoming part of the US strategy to win World War II.

    Once it became clear that Germany was close to surrender, the US delivered an ultimatum to Japan at the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction.” Since part of the terms of surrender included the formation of a new democratic government with no role for the Emperor, the proposal was rejected.

    On August 6th, 1945, “Little Boy” was dropped over Hiroshima. Three days later, “Fat Man” was dropped over Nagasaki. The bombs killed over 100,000 people combined and levelled the cities to the ground. Some historians have theorized that a desire to test the implosion type design factored into the decision to drop a second bomb.

    While the Manhattan Project was effectively shuttered with the end of World War II, various agencies and committees were created to apply Manhattan Project-era technologies to other fields. These include the Atomic Energy Commision, the Department of Energy, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  • Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Read this brief as a PDF

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous international organization within the United Nations system that is responsible for the verification of safeguards for nuclear weapons material. Along with promoting nuclear energy for civil purposes and nuclear safety education, the IAEA is chiefly responsible for implementing safeguard agreements. These safeguards are intended to make sure that nuclear materials and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes and not being diverted in any way for secret weapons development. While all nuclear weapons states have accepted some safeguards on their civil nuclear activities, the IAEA safeguards are primarily implemented in non-nuclear weapons states.

    Founded in 1957, the IAEA was established just as nations were beginning to trade in nuclear technology and materials. Spurred by burgeoning Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, the idea for the organization was born out of the Eisenhower Administration’s mission to stem nuclear proliferation. Under the IAEA Statute, the US is named as the depository, or custodian, government of the organization. In 1980, the US agreed to a voluntary offer safeguards agreement (VOA), which subjects civil nuclear facilities of its choosing to the same inspections as non-nuclear weapons states.

    IAEA safeguards are measures used to monitor nuclear activities, through which the agency seeks to verify that nuclear facilities and materials are being used in accordance with established guidelines. Uranium and plutonium are the main nuclear materials that are monitored, and states are required to record and compile a list of domestic nuclear activities and submit it to the IAEA for recordkeeping. Traditional safeguards offer IAEA inspectors reasonable assurances that what states have reported to them is correct, complete and true. This type of safeguards includes in-person inspections, material inventory & accounting review, and surveillance methods including surveillance cameras, tamper-resistant equipment, records auditing and statistical samples. In addition to verifying that states have reported their nuclear activity accurately, this class of safeguards also act as a deterrent against possible undercover nuclear weapons programs by increasing the risk of detection.

    Although there have been some failures with the traditional safeguard measures in the past (e.g. Iran), modern safeguard approaches aim to detect covert nuclear activity in addition to solely verifying declared activity. Modern safeguards include information gathered from various open sources, such as intelligence and visitor accounts, and can paint a more complete picture of nuclear activity in a state outside of what is being officially reported.

    It is important to note, however, that despite their name, safeguards don’t actually provide for physical safety or guarding. The goal of safeguards is to detect any undeclared diversion or production of nuclear material in their infancy stage. Since there isn’t an enforcement department of the IAEA, agency inspectors can’t forcibly prevent states from using material covertly; instead, their significance lies in being able to alert the rest of the international community to suspicious activity.

    Most UN members joined the IAEA at its inception in 1957. While IAEA membership at the time was not required, states were strongly encouraged to join in order to have access to information regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1961, all non-nuclear weapons states are required to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The IAEA currently has 172 members.