Because of this, the costs and risks of an attack merit far more public scrutiny than they are receiving.
Nicole Grajewski
{
"authors": [
"Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Nuclear weapons have unintended beneficial consequences, argues Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh. They can make the intended development of a more peaceful global and political order possible. The Carnegie Nonproliferation Program presents this paper in hopes of furthering international dialogue and debate on the nuclear order, including the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In this Policy Outlook Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh, an eminent Dutch scholar, argues that nuclear weapons have unintended beneficial consequences. They can make the intended development of a more peaceful global and political order possible. The Carnegie Nonproliferation Program presents this paper in hopes of furthering international dialogue and debate on the nuclear order, including the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Summary
About the Author
Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh was professor of international relations at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, and the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague. He has been a Harkness Fellow at Harvard University and the University of California at Berkeley; chairman of the Board of the Netherlands Association for International Affairs; and member of the Advisory Council for International Affairs of the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense. Among his publications are The Nuclear Revolution and the End of the Cold War: Forced Restraint (Basingstoke and London, 1992) and Naar een Nucleaire Wereldorde (Amsterdam, 2008).
Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh
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.
Because of this, the costs and risks of an attack merit far more public scrutiny than they are receiving.
Nicole Grajewski
The organization is under U.S. sanctions, caught between a need to change and a refusal to do so.
Mohamad Fawaz
A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.
Michael Young
Implementing Phase 2 of Trump’s plan for the territory only makes sense if all in Phase 1 is implemented.
Yezid Sayigh
Israeli-Lebanese talks have stalled, and the reason is that the United States and Israel want to impose normalization.
Michael Young