As the North Korean atomic crisis gathers momentum, the Trump administration is suggesting that the option of letting the East Asian allies acquire nuclear options is on the table.
There is no clear, internationally accepted definition of what activities or technologies constitute a nuclear weapons program. This lack of definition encumbers nuclear energy cooperation and complicates peaceful resolution of proliferation disputes.
A world without nuclear weapons would be, in the long term, a better world than today’s. But, with treaty negotiations about to start at the UN, it is time to be blunt about the practical implications of a ban, as opposed to its principled ambitions.
North Korea has nuclear weapons, something that won’t change anytime soon. As bad as this is, recognizing that status in a way that paves the road for South Korea to follow suit would be even worse.
Washington must present a credible threat to Pyongyang, while leaving the door open to talks.
Talk of a European nuclear deterrent might be welcome in Washington, but such a scheme would do very little to help Europe tackle the biggest challenges it faces.
President Trump’s “grand bargain” with Putin is setting expectations too high for what can be achieved under the current circumstances.
What can be learned about China’s hypersonic boost-glide weapon program from flight tests, and the implications of the program for the security of the United States and our allies.
South Korea’s ongoing political crisis is making it difficult to respond effectively to North Korean provocations.
Territorial conflicts in Southeastern Europe have hampered the implementation of international agreements on arms control and confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) in disputed territories under the effective control of de facto regimes.