Commentary
Despite the agreement’s uncertainty, it’s still a significant development in regional and nuclear policy.
Andrew Leber, Jane Darby Menton
{
"authors": [
"James M. Acton",
"Edward Ifft",
"John McLaughlin"
],
"type": "other",
"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",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Arms Control and Deterrence
Even after the world reaches the long-for goal of zero nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence will continue to have a vital policy role for some time to come.
Published on Oct 2, 2011
Source: Deterrence: Its Past and Future
This book is a collection of the papers prepared for and presented at the November 2010 Hoover Nuclear Threat Initiative Conference by an expert group of analysts, all of whom have studied deterrence issues for many years. The authors highlight ways deterrence has been shaped by surrounding conditions and circumstances. They look at the prospective reliability of deterrence as a tool of statecraft in the emerging international environment. And they examine the challenges of “weaponless deterrence”: developing approaches to nuclear deterrence that rely not on the actua, but rather on the potential existence of nuclear weapons. In addition, they look at the ongoing debates over “de-alerting” (slowing down the capability for immediate launch and rapid nuclear escalation), the role of arms control, and the practical considerations related to verification and compliance.
As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, the United States should ensure that its nuclear forces are safe, reliable, and capable of launching a devastating nuclear strike on any nation that attacks it with nuclear weapons. Even after the world reaches the long-for goal of zero nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence will continue to have a vital role for some time to come. As George Shultz says in his foreword to this report, “One thing is clear: no analysis of a world without nuclear weapons can proceed very far without considering the issue of deterrence.”
About the Authors
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.
Edward Ifft
John McLaughlin
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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- What We Know About the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal
- A Path Forward on AI Safety for the United States and ChinaCommentary
“AI safety in parallel” is modest and pragmatic but vital.
Matt Sheehan
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- Negotiating an Age of Conquest: Converting American Power Into Durable Political OutcomesPaper
There is a deeply rooted assumption in post–Cold War American statecraft that overwhelming military and economic power translates directly into favorable political outcomes. But force alone is rarely enough. To meet the challenges of the mid-21st century, Washington needs a cultural shift toward a mindset that takes negotiation far more seriously.
Cecily Brewer
- In the Trump Gaza Plan, Diplomatic Failure is SuccessCommentary
By failing to address Palestinian representation, the current process is bound to lead to just another temporary arrangement.
Nathan J. Brown
