Bombs Away? Being Realistic About Deep Nuclear Reductions

{
  "authors": [
    "James M. Acton"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Bombs Away? Being Realistic About Deep Nuclear Reductions

Skeptics and supporters alike tend to ignore the practical realities of deep nuclear reductions. Nuclear-armed states will only agree to deep reductions if several demanding conditions are met.

By James M. Acton

Published on Mar 19, 2012

Source: Washington Quarterly

There are about 22,000 nuclear warheads in the world today. Reducing that number—eventually to zero—is a major element of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. To date, his administration’s progress toward this goal has been modest, even with agreement on a new round of U.S.–Russian cuts with the New START treaty.

Nonetheless, opponents of his agenda, particularly in Congress, worry that any further arms control will pitch the United States down a slippery slope toward zero. Simultaneously, supporters increasingly complain that Obama has not been bold enough. Their frustration, which is felt in capitals across the world, risks compromising the willingness of key states to support important U.S. foreign policy objectives, especially those related to nonproliferation.

Neither these fears nor these frustrations are fair. Skeptics and supporters tend to ignore the practical realities of deep reductions. Nuclear-armed states will only agree to deep reductions if at least three demanding conditions are met.

Full text available in the Washington Quarterly.

About the Author

James M. Acton

Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Recent Work

Paper
Nuclear Weapons and the Future of American Power
- James M. Acton, Ankit Panda
Commentary
The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the Past
- James M. Acton

Nuclear Policy North America United States Caucasus Russia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

Commentary
AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance Gap
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
Article
Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
Commentary
The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
Article
What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
Commentary
India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari

More Work from Carnegie India

Commentary

AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance Gap

How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?

Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega

Article

Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

Vrinda Sahai

Commentary

The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

Shruti Mittal

Article

What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

Konark Bhandari

Commentary

India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

Konark Bhandari