Ploughshares Fund and the Washington, DC-based think tank, Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) have teamed up to launch a new debate series inspired by our report, ‘10 Big Nuclear Ideas for the Next President [1],’ published one week after the November election.

Watch the video above or listen to the audio podcast of the first debate, centered on whether or not the US should expand European missile defenses for NATO in a post-Iran deal world.

The current approach to European missile defenses emerged prior to the conclusion of the agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program (JCPOA) at a time when missile threats from beyond the European theater dominated the European Security landscape. Since that time, much has changed, including the Russian annexation of Crimea and finalization of the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran. This shifting security landscape has returned the spotlight to European missile defenses – but views on the way forward diverge sharply. While some call for expanded missile defenses to bolster assurances to NATO partners, others call for pausing the program before a new site is built in Poland as a means to deescalate tensions with Russia.

The February 16 event featured Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, Frank Rose, CSIS’s Senior Fellow and Director of Missile Defense Project, Thomas Karako and Philip Coyle, a Ploughshares Fund Paul Olum grantee. Coyle is also Senior Science Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, and previously served as associate director of national security and international affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology under President Obama, as an assistant secretary of defense and director of operational test and evaluation under President George W. Bush and as an associate director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Thomas Karako and Frank Rose argued in favor of expanding U.S. missiles defenses for NATO, while Joe Cirincione and Philip Coyle argued against it.

Stay tuned for news about the next debate in the series by following @plough_shares [2] on Twitter.