By failing to address Palestinian representation, the current process is bound to lead to just another temporary arrangement.
Nathan J. Brown
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"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"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
WASHINGTON, Apr 6—President Obama has called for a world free of nuclear weapons. But many influential people in the United States and abroad question whether this objective is desirable or feasible. In a follow-up to George Perkovich and James M. Acton’s groundbreaking paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
The editors note that none of the nuclear-weapon states "has an employee, let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons." Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate begins the serious discussion of the conditions necessary for total disarmament.
Perkovich and Acton invited a distinguished group of current and former officials and respected defense analysts—from nuclear-armed and non–nuclear-weapon states—to recommend new paths toward disarmament and the best ways to verify and enforce new measures. Their responses are published in this volume, together with the original Adelphi Paper, and a response by Perkovich and Acton.
###
INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME
EXCERPTS
NOTES
Carnegie 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.
By failing to address Palestinian representation, the current process is bound to lead to just another temporary arrangement.
Nathan J. Brown
Morocco and Algeria, each in its own way, are having to navigate the global economic fallout of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.
Yasmine Zarhloule
Any move by the United States to make good on Trump’s suggestion that Washington persuade Damascus to confront Hezbollah militarily would have catastrophic consequences.
Kheder Khaddour
As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.
Michael Young
What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?
Zaha Hassan