The 1986 incident showed that a nuclear accident anytime is a nuclear accident for all time.
Corey Hinderstein
{
"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.
The 1986 incident showed that a nuclear accident anytime is a nuclear accident for all time.
Corey Hinderstein
In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee
If Washington cannot adapt to the ongoing transformations of a multipolar world, its superiority will become a liability.
Amr Hamzawy
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
Here’s why—and what the next president needs to do to fix the process.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller