<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Future Atlas &#187; WMD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/category/security/wmd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog</link>
	<description>The geography of the future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:12:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Debate over Bombing Iran</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/13/the-debate-over-bombing-iran/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/13/the-debate-over-bombing-iran/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/?p=407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Economist held a debate earlier this week about taking military action against Iran&#8217;s nuclear program.
In favor of military action was General Chuck F. Wald, a director at Deloitte.  Dr. Emily Landau, a senior research associate at Israel&#8217;s Institute for National Security Studies, opposed the option.
For military action
General Wald offered these forecasts:

&#8220;There remain levers, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/13/the-debate-over-bombing-iran/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iranian Nukes Closer?</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/11/iranian-nukes-closer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/11/iranian-nukes-closer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/11/iranian-nukes-closer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Iran may now have enough nuclear fuel &#8220;to make a rapid, if risky, sprint for a nuclear weapon,&#8221; the New York Times reported this week.
However, design work on an actual nuclear weapon may have been halted in 2003, and &#8220;it is unclear how many months — or even years — it would take Iran to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/11/iranian-nukes-closer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Armageddon in Islamabad&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/27/armageddon-in-islamabad/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/27/armageddon-in-islamabad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/27/armageddon-in-islamabad/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Sunni extremist takeover of Pakistan would be an immense threat to the US and hard to counter, Bruce Reidel writes in The National Interest.
Such a takeover
would create the greatest threat the United States has yet to face in its war on terror. Pakistan as an Islamic-extremist safe haven would bolster al-Qaeda’s capabilities tenfold. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/27/armageddon-in-islamabad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eyeing Pakistan&#8217;s Nukes</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/02/eyeing-pakistans-nukes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/02/eyeing-pakistans-nukes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/02/eyeing-pakistans-nukes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Al Qaeda has been unusually clear about its interest in nuclear weapons, and in particular those held by Pakistan, recently.
On June 21st, al Qaeda&#8217;s leader in Afghanistan said this about Pakistan&#8217;s arsenal: &#8220;God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/02/eyeing-pakistans-nukes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would striking Iran work?</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/11/would-striking-iran-work/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/11/would-striking-iran-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/11/would-striking-iran-work/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security attempts to answer that question, the Washington Post reports.
A military strike against Iran&#8217;s nuclear facilities would probably only delay the country&#8217;s progress toward nuclear-weapons capability, according to a study that concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran&#8217;s resolve to acquire the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/11/would-striking-iran-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iranians and nukes</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/03/16/iranians-and-nukes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/03/16/iranians-and-nukes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/03/16/iranians-and-nukes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New polling in Iran offers mixed signals to those who hope for &#8220;moderation.&#8221;
A strong majority of Iranians favors allowing all reformist candidates to contest elections, and 86% say that all leaders of their country should be elected.
At the same time, a slim majority of Iranians says that Iran should develop nuclear weapons&#8211;51% are in favor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2008/03/16/iranians-and-nukes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Synthetic life: security implications</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/31/synthetic-life-security-implications/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/31/synthetic-life-security-implications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/31/synthetic-life-security-implications/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Washington Post recently detailed developments in synthetic life: microorganisms guided by completely artificial DNA.
While there are many upsides &#8212; artificial organisms might be able to produce cheap biofuels and high-tech chemicals &#8212; this technology also has potentially dire security implications.
A biotech watchdog organization, the ETC Group, put it this way:
Ultimately synthetic biology means cheaper [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/31/synthetic-life-security-implications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pakistan: &#8220;the nightmare scenario&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/30/pakistan-the-nightmare-scenario/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/30/pakistan-the-nightmare-scenario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/30/pakistan-the-nightmare-scenario/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a recent New York Times article, many in the US intelligence community &#8220;believe that Pakistan, not Iraq, is the place Mr. Bush should consider the &#8216;central front&#8217; in the battle against terrorism,&#8221; as it threatens &#8220;political meltdown in the one country where Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and nuclear weapons are all in play.&#8221;
The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/30/pakistan-the-nightmare-scenario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Terrorism: bases and nukes</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/21/terrorism-bases-and-nukes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/21/terrorism-bases-and-nukes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Somalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/21/terrorism-bases-and-nukes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress polled 108 foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum about terrorism and related issues.
Asked what country is likely to be the next al Qaeda stronghold, the experts said:

Pakistan &#8212; 35%
Iraq &#8212; 22%
Somalia &#8212; 11%
Sudan &#8212; 8%
Afghanistan &#8212; 7%

The experts also put Pakistan at the head of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/21/terrorism-bases-and-nukes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran: scenario &#8212; the Great War of 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2006/07/16/iran-scenario-the-great-war-of-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2006/07/16/iran-scenario-the-great-war-of-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Future Atlas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2006/07/16/iran-scenario-the-great-war-of-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Writing in The Telegraph, historian Niall Ferguson attempts to make the case for immediate military action against Iran via a future scenario perspective.
His scenario includes these ideas:

It would not be difficult to stop Iran&#8217;s nuclear program with preventive airstrikes.
This is a repeat of the history of the 1930s, with a dictator arming for war.
Iran will [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2006/07/16/iran-scenario-the-great-war-of-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

