Other
- +18
James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …
{
"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",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Strategic Offensive Arms in Non-Nuclear Configuration: Another Irritant for Russia–U.S. Relations
A U.S.-Russian arms race in strategic conventional weapons is an unfortunate possibility, but it is not an inevitability.
Published on Feb 27, 2014
Source: Russian Council
A U.S.-Russian arms race in strategic conventional weapons is an unfortunate possibility—but it is not an inevitability. The U.S. Conventional Prompt Global Strike program is in the research and development phase. No procurement decisions have yet been taken and, if the U.S. does ultimately move forward, deployments are unlikely before the mid-2020s. Similarly, Russia also appears to be some years away from being able to field long-range, hypersonic conventional weapons.
Moreover, even if both states do deploy such weapons, cooperation could stabilize any competition. One possibility would be to make all long-range, hypersonic conventional weapons (including non-ballistic systems) accountable in a future arms control treaty. Unfortunately, given that the arms control process is stalled, Russia and the United States should focus on other forms of confidence building for the time being. To this end, reciprocal declarations of acquisition plans, data exchanges, inspections and launch notifications could all help build mutual security.The United States is not considering acquiring Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapons for use against Russia. In the final analysis, therefore, I remain hopeful that such weapons can be managed to avoid a costly and potentially dangerous arms race.
This article was originally published on the Russian Council.
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.
- Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
- Trump Has an Out on Nuclear Testing. He Should Take It.Commentary
James M. Acton
Recent Work
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.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?Commentary
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With IranCommentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
- Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with IsraelCommentary
Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.
Mohanad Hage Ali
- Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with IranCommentary
Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.
Angie Omar
- Realism and the Lebanon-Israel TalksCommentary
Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.
Michael Young
