In an article from the farewell edition of the center’s Courier magazine, the 2019 Accelerator Initiative cohort shared details of their experience in the program, outlined their research, and offered some advice to those setting out into the field. What follows is a full transcript of those interviews.
For excerpts from and commentary based on the interviews below:
What got you interested in (nuclear/technology) policy? When did you think to make it your career?
In the past, I worked at a think tank in New Delhi on India-US defense and security cooperation and the United States’ policies in South Asia. When I got an opportunity to participate in a conference on nuclear weapons issues in Vienna, I was told that nuclear weapons issues are hard security topics dominated by men and a technical subject beyond my ability to grasp and present a paper on the same. I was asked to pass on the opportunity to a male colleague. I refused to do so and instead, prepared well for the conference in Vienna. Eventually, I got selected to join James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies as a Visiting Fellow to work on nuclear dynamics in South Asia and emerging technologies – specifically underwater drones. Since that day, I work doubly hard to hone my craft in the nuclear and emerging technologies field whilst also advocating for the need for a greater diversity of gender and thoughts on national security issues.
What were you working on when you decided to apply for the Accelerator Initiative?
I was working on a paper on drones and counter-drone technologies. The paper was published by New America and is titled, ‘India and the United States: The Time Has Come to Collaborate on Commercial Drones’.
Did you meet anyone or attend any events that influenced your interests, or helped solidify them?
The Militarization of Artificial Intelligence Workshop at the UNODA proved to be very helpful. I wish I could have attended other seminars and workshops organized by the Stanley Center and hope to remain connected and collaborate on other research projects of mutual interests.
What is your research paper about?
The research paper titled ‘Emerging Technologies and Strategic Stability in South Asia’ aims to research the integration of emerging technologies with strategic weapons and its impact on the balance of power in conflictual dyads like China-India and India-Pakistan. The research paper is essentially deductive and explanatory and is premised on showcasing causation – integration of emerging technologies with strategic weapons can lower the nuclear threshold, shorten decision-making timelines and will create cascading strategic competition and security dilemmas in Southern Asia – China, India and Pakistan.
What are you working on now apart from the paper?
I am in the process of completing a project on the impact of social media on crisis escalation during the Pulwama-Balakot crisis. The thrust of the report, ‘High Stress; High Stakes: Information War and its Impact on Crisis Escalation during the Pulwama-Balakot Crisis’ is to examine how digital media platforms augment crisis escalation and investigate can social media act as a voice of restraint and reason or can push countries to the brink of war.
Recently, I have co-authored a report titled ‘Breaking Barriers: Best Practices for the Advancement and Inclusion of Women in STEMM and National Security’, published by CRDF Global. The report makes the case that organizational policies need to be expanded and implemented to revitalize focus on inclusion and diversity: of gender; color; culture and thoughts and identifies 6 barriers that stymie the advancement and inclusion of women in STEMM and security. The report highlights a few best practices’ guidelines for understanding and combating these barriers.
What kinds of changes have you seen in the policy space you are working in? What do you hope to see change?
The national security field has a diversity problem. However, in the last couple of years, efforts have been undertaken to redress this challenge and emphasize the importance of inclusivity, and diversity. Several NGOs – like WCAPS, the Stanley Center, N-Square, are undertaking deliberate actions to upend the status quo and make the field more diverse and well-represented. More such efforts will be highly welcome and appreciated.
Another challenge is that of retention of mid-career professionals in the nuclear policy field. I believe that some of the more enterprising NGOs mentioned above can come up with projects, training programs, podcasts and other initiatives which provides opportunities for both early and mid-career professionals to engage and retain in the field. If these organizations can lead the way by creating a template for the path forward, then several other well-intentioned NGOs too will follow suit.
What advice do you have for those starting out in the field?
Lending a helping hand to rising professionals and sharing knowledge and information regarding career opportunities among peers is essential.
I consider myself fortunate as several senior experts in the industry have taken their time to provide guidance and mentorship to me. One of the common things that all of them have said is ‘pay it forward’. This advice has guided my choice to engage with young professionals who are entering the field to offer guidance and share my experiences.
As a recipient of several fellowships – Scoville, New America, CSIS; the Stanley Center, I am able to advise how to make one’s application competitive. I always make to review the resumes and cover letters and provide feedback. This is a two-way process and I too always learn from my peers and other emerging national security professionals in the field. It is a good way to build interpersonal relationships and friendships in the industry. I thrive in a collaborative environment and believe that being a team player is equally vital in this field.
Since the nuclear policy field is a niche industry, gaining professional training and specialized degrees are a great way to prepare oneself to enter the field.
What got you interested in (nuclear/technology) policy? When did you think to make it your career?
I first got interested in the broader policy field and specifically defense technology policy during my time in undergrad. When I was an engineering major, I loved the methodologies and broader approaches that are taught in the STEM fields but longed for a more holistic view that would put everything in the human context. After changing majors and joining Perry World House, I had the opportunity to use the critical thinking and STEM passions I had developed on policy-oriented applications. By listening to the PWH speakers and working on policy projects, I realized that the defense technology policy field was a potential fulfilling career path that gave me the opportunity to combine by my passions and I haven’t looked back.
What were you working on when you decided to apply for the Accelerator Initiative?
In the nine months prior to applying to the Accelerator Initiative, I had graduated from undergrad, moved to a new city, interned at the Center for a New American Security, and started a new position as an analyst for the U.S. Navy. During my time in undergrad and CNAS, I was immersed in the academic, think tank, policy-oriented communities where I had many opportunities to conduct research and pursue personal projects. It was therefore a large adjustment to leave the familiarity with academia and enter the world of federal government and military. At the time of application, I was still learning the ropes of my new position, not the least of which was learning the necessary acronyms! Therefore, I was thrilled at the opportunity to apply for the Accelerator Initiative since it would allow me to keep a foot in the academic realms while allowing me to pursue a policy research project.
Did you meet anyone or attend any events that influenced your interests, or helped solidify them?
By spending time with my fellow cohort members, and attending the Brussels and UN events, I had the opportunity to learn how the nuclear policy realm interacts with emerging technologies in both positive and negative ways. These roundtable discussions broadened my perspective not only in terms of subject matter but also professional training; by discussing contemporary nuclear policy with representatives from academia, engineering, politics, and Silicon Valley, I was forced to confront the assumptions and mindset I had developed in previous professional experiences, both academic and military. The Brussels and UN events in particular challenged my policy biases and emphasized the importance of diversity in terms of gender and professional background.
What is your research paper about?
My research paper seeks to answer the following policy question: how can the nuclear weapons development and storage facilities efficiently implement a holistic approach toward advanced manufacturing to meet increased nuclear demand? In other words, it provides actionable recommendations to accelerate the adoption of advanced manufacturing within the U.S .nuclear enterprise. Over the course of the paper, I examine the current state of U.S. nuclear infrastructure, define advanced manufacturing, and provide background on advanced manufacturing support and implementation across the public and private sectors. My proposal recommends looking beyond U.S. borders to leverage international collaboration opportunities.
What are you working on now apart from the paper?
Apart from my paper, I’m continuing to grow as a defense analyst and beginning to consider educational opportunities at graduate school within the defense technology policy realm.
What kinds of changes have you seen in the policy space you are working in? What do you hope to see change?
While my exposure to the defense policy realm is limited, I’m greatly encouraged by the increasing levels of inclusion sought by the broader industry to strengthen overall policy. The Accelerator Initiative is an prime example of think tanks providing traditionally underrepresented groups in defense with the opportunity to take a seat at the proverbial table to both participate and learn. Similarly, hiring practices in the federal government that I’ve witnessed have brought in analysts from various personal and professional backgrounds. I’m eager for these practices and programs to strengthen knowing that defense policy will be better for it.
What advice do you have for those starting out in the field?
For those like me, starting out in the field, I’d recommend seeking out every opportunity to develop as a professional, whether that’s by applying for jobs that you’re unsure you’re qualified for or voicing a comment during a meeting. When contemplating whether or not to apply for this Accelerator Initiative, I was doubtful that I would be accepted given my minimal experience both in terms of professional time and knowledge of nuclear policy. Even once accepted, these doubts surfaced prior to each Accelerator Initiative event but over the year, I came to realize that my experiences, analysis, and voice matter. By sharing my thoughts at the roundtables and presenting my research topic at the cohort panel, I gained professional and personal confidence in my abilities.
Other Note:
“As a side note, this comment didn’t fit well into any of the questions but I thought it would be good for the Stanley Center to know if nothing else. As an analyst who gets into the weeds of research and strives to provide policymakers with the most informed analysis possible, I found the Accelerator Initiative to be wholly complementary to my day-job. While there are definite hurdles such as international travel, reporting requirements, and pre-publication review, the development opportunity is undoubtedly worth every effort. Professionally, I was able to learn about perspectives outside of the military; personally, I was able to find my voice. In particular, by writing the policy paper, I was forced to change my analytic mindset from that of only informing someone else to taking it a step further and translating the analysis into potential solutions. Thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in this program – I can’t recommend it enough.”
What got you interested in (nuclear/technology) policy? When did you think to make it your career?
While I was getting my Masters in Health Physics, one of the requirements was to do an internship in nuclear nonproliferation. I didn’t know what that meant at the time but through great connections and luck I ended up working on the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This internship provided a deep dive into all things related to nuclear weapons policy and technology. I made it my career when I realized there is a space for science, technology, and policy to commingle and produce applicable solutions to big problems.
What were you working on when you decided to apply for the Accelerator Initiative?
I was working as a Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation looking at a wide array of issues at the intersection of nuclear technology and policy, such as nonproliferation concerns regarding new nuclear fuel cycle processes and working with Russian nuclear scientists on the future of nuclear energy. I was also interested in expanding my network to include underrepresented groups working on nuclear issues and work on more forward thinking ideas. The Accelerator Initiative provided an excellent solution to both!
Did you meet anyone or attend any events that influenced your interests, or helped solidify them?
Definitely, I enjoyed the workshops on applying an ethical framework for decision making in open source analysis and journalism, specifically for geo-spatial imaging. There are so many nuances about the way technology is changing our access to and relationship with data and information it is difficult to really understand the societal implications. This is an important dialogue to have and I am grateful to have been invited to participate in the early stages.
What is your research paper about?
My research paper is about the democratization of disruptive technologies and the impacts on nuclear nonproliferation. Specifically, in the geo-spatial imaging community, information and analysis techniques that were tightly held by the intelligence community are now available to the “public”. The gut reaction may be this is a good thing since more information leads to better decision making and creates a more equal playing field, but in many cases the “public” includes a small privileged subset of people predominately from Western society who are not vetted and are only accountable to themselves.
What are you working on now apart from the paper?
I recently started a new job as a Program Manager in the Nonproliferation and Arms Control Research and Development group at Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, TN. I manage, lead and support a variety of projects dealing with international nuclear safeguards, arms control and nuclear compliance verification.
What kinds of changes have you seen in the policy space you are working in?
I have seen the end of nuclear security summits, the U.S. withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the U.S. withdraw from The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the U.S. fielding the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), heightened rhetoric about hypersonic nuclear missiles, and North Korea advancing its missile capabilities… to name a few.
What do you hope to see change?
I am not sure what can be done about the decisions already made and the stability of the world as a whole, but I think social dynamics in groups and organizations in the United States can change. I hope to see more people of color and women in top level executive positions, as directors, presidents, senior manages, etc.
What advice do you have for those starting out in the field?
My advice is to build a strong network of supportive friends who you admire and respect, question everything, and make sure that what you are working on is in line with your core values; don’t compromise your fundamental belief structure.
What got you interested in (nuclear/technology) policy? When did you think to make it your career?
I’ve always been interested in international affairs and conflict, and after spending a year substitute teaching (middle school boys are the WORST), I decided to go to graduate school for a Ph.D. in political science. I was really interested in the earlier works on nuclear coercion and deterrence – work by Thomas Schelling and Robert Jervis – and wanted to figure out how to understand many of those dynamics in the conventional weapons world. While writing my dissertation, I kept seeing similarities and overlaps between conventional and nuclear strategy, deterrence, perceptions – pretty much everything. I wasn’t able to tackle the nuclear side in the dissertation, but that interest has always been there for me, and I knew at some point in my career I’d want to more directly focus on nuclear arms and technology.
What were you working on when you decided to apply for the Accelerator Initiative?
I was contemplating revisions to my book manuscript, which is about the conventional arms trade, and looking forward to my next big project. One of the things that’s always interested me is the separation between nuclear arms and conventional arms when scholars and policymakers talk about weapons. But they’re more related than I think we realize. In my work on the conventional arms trade, I kept seeing instances where conventional arms were offered as an incentive to keep states from going nuclear, sometimes successfully. So I wanted to know more about the nuclear weapons world, and try to bring what I know about conventional arms to the conversation. The Accelerator Initiative seemed like the perfect way to dive into this.
Did you meet anyone or attend any events that influenced your interests, or helped solidify them?
All of the events! I feel like I learned so much from all of the Accelerator Initiative events that I’ll be processing through it for a long time. One of the events that most surprised me was the one about using digital ledger technology for nuclear safeguards. I went in to that event thinking that bitcoin – as the example of DLT I was more familiar with – was kind of pointless and couldn’t be scaled up to a point where it would actually be useful. I got a crash course in what DLT is, how it works, and the ways that it could revolutionize nuclear monitoring and safeguards. That sort of sparked my interest in perceptions of cyber capabilities, and how those perceptions will affect nuclear stability. How much misperception is really out there, and how does misperception create differing incentives for action?
Beyond specific events, I really enjoyed conversations with Melanie Sisson of the Stimson Center, and with Brian Hanson. I also got a lot out of the session on the militarization on AI. I felt like my role was sometimes to step back and ask about the broader societal and political implications of technological change. And I was really please with how receptive the technological and subject matter experts were to those questions. That experience, more generally, helped convince me that there’s a real need to figure out how to bring social science research and methods to bear on pressing questions about technological change in development, in a way that tries to do justice to both the technology and the social science.
What is your research paper about?
My policy paper is about how perceptions of cyber capabilities can affect nuclear security. From the information environment surrounding the 2016 U.S. election, to targeted phishing emails that shut down billion-dollar companies, cyber capabilities are increasingly used to affect how people think about the world around them. I’m interested in how perceptions of cyber capabilities will affect the nuclear realm. If, for example, states fear that adversaries could interfere with their nuclear command and control, does this increase incentives to use nuclear weapons? What does the general public think about risks in cyberspace, and can public opinion be a push toward conflict or a brake on escalatory processes?
What are you working on now apart from the paper?
Currently I’m trying to figure out how to teach online classes…but my longer term projects are about alliances and foreign policy. One of the things I’m working on is how NATO can coordinate cyber policies so that the alliance reduces its cyber vulnerabilities, but still lets each member state set its own domestic cyber policies. In international relations we’ve been talking about interconnectedness and interdependence for a long time, but I think new technological developments really bring that to a new level, and we’re beginning to understand that a borderless internet means we need new governance mechanisms, rules, and norms of behavior.
What kinds of changes have you seen in the policy space you are working in? What do you hope to see change?
I’ve seen more interest in bringing social science into technical fields, such as emphasizing human psychology, leaders’ perceptions, or international norms. I hope this trend continues, because I think in order to craft policy that will be effective we need experts with diverse backgrounds at the table. I also hope the number of women involved in these conversations increases!
What advice do you have for those starting out in the field?
It can feel kind of intimidating to break into this world, especially as a young woman. One of the hardest things for me has been making the move to be able to claim my expertise, and feel comfortable using that expertise to contribute to discussions. I’ve found a lot of support along the way from women (and many men) at various stages in their careers. So my biggest piece of advice is to reach out! I’ve found people very willing to talk and almost universally happy to share advice and support the careers of junior women. The other piece of advice is to recognize your knowledge and expertise, and start putting yourself out there, whether writing for a blog, participating in Twitter conversations, or whatever. It’s a great way to get ideas out there and start becoming a known quantity.
What got you interested in (nuclear/technology) policy? When did you think to make it your career?
My interest in nuclear policy was a result of what I like to call a “perfect storm”. Because of my family background, I had focused on North Korea for some of my undergrad and growing up in Los Alamos made nuclear issues very familiar. On top of that, I started grad school at MIIS around the time that North Korea’s nuclear program really started ramping up. Thanks to my Korean language skills and geospatial background I was really lucky to be able to join the super OSINT team at CNS, who at the time included Jeffrey Lewis, Melissa Hanham, and Dave Schmerler. I loved being able to integrate my previous experience and skills into an incredibly active account, and especially to be able to share our work and analysis process.
What were you working on when you decided to apply for the Accelerator Initiative?
I was finishing up my first year of being a full-time researcher at CNS and had just transitioned to lead my first big project. I had also started to put together a proposal for a new project that intersected the nuclear policy/tech fields.
Did you meet anyone or attend any events that influenced your interests, or helped solidify them?
Absolutely! One highlight was getting to talk with Lord Des Browne, who I’d met briefly through the CTBTO Youth Group. I ran into him one morning before one of the AI events and was lucky enough to have breakfast one-on-one. It was inspiring to hear about his career and perspectives on the future of nuclear policy, and he was very receptive to hearing about my projects and perspectives. It ended up being one of the most impactful mentoring experiences I’ve ever had.
What is your research paper about?
My paper explores the possibility for hyperspectral imagery to be used as a means to monitor uranium production activities in the future.
What advice do you have for those starting out in the field?
This is an incredibly small and close field, so there’s a big chance that you’ll get to meet the “big wigs” and interact with colleagues who are located internationally over and over again. This is great because you’ll get to forge working relationships and even friendships, and probably call on some of those to collaborate on future projects or initiatives. On the same side of the coin, there are people in the field who are the classic “gate keepers”, which can be discouraging, but so far the helpful and friendly people definitely outnumber the bad, and I’ve gotten to meet some incredible people!