Paper
James M. Acton, Ankit Panda
{
"authors": [
"James M. Acton"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China"
],
"collections": [
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"North Korea",
"North America",
"United States",
"South Korea",
"China",
"Japan"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Some Nuclear Ground Rules for Kim Jong Un
The North Korean nuclear crisis is far from over, and foreclosing escalation pathways is in the best interests of the United States, its allies, and Pyongyang.
Published on Aug 16, 2017
Source: Foreign Policy
The time for denial is over. North Korea has — or will very shortly have — the capability to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States. In the coming decades, historians can assign blame. For now, it is the task of policymakers to ensure that historians will still be around in the future to dissect this failure.
While denuclearization should remain the international community’s formal goal, it is no longer a practical policy. A freeze on missile and nuclear testing, which I advocated only seven months ago, has lost value as North Korea’s capabilities have rapidly advanced. Analysts can happily theorize about a disarming preventative strike, but the risks — to both the United States and its allies — are so serious that no sane politician would authorize one. Instead, Washington should try to establish some basic rules of the road with a newly nuclear Pyongyang.
This article was originally published in Foreign Policy
Read the full text
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.
- Nuclear Weapons and the Future of American Power
- The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the PastCommentary
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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Nuclear Deterrence Needs to Account for Domestic PoliticsArticle
Individual leaders and public attitudes—especially in democracies—matter for credibility.
Lauren Sukin, Samuel Seitz
- Could Nuclear Warheads Really Be Deployed to the Baltic States?Commentary
Latvia and Lithuania have been considering whether they could temporarily host NATO nuclear weapons in the event of war or a similar crisis.
Sergejs Potapkins
- How Indian Americans Plan to Vote in the 2026 MidtermsArticle
The 2024 Republican gains among this important constituency have not held.
- +2
Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Annabel Miller, …
- Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate InterventionResearch
Geoengineering is becoming a geopolitical question as much as a climate one. The way states and the private sector pursue these technologies, assess risks, and drive research increasingly appears focused on gaining a strategic edge. In a field where governance in lagging behind, Europe should keep track of the geopolitical implications if it is to develop effective regulatory frameworks.
Olivia Lazard, ed.
- Israel’s Election Had No Clear Winner. What Comes Next for the Region?Commentary
Carnegie’s Middle East Program scholars reflect on the impasse and its potential impacts on the Middle East.
- +9
Nathan J. Brown, Alper Coşkun, Amr Hamzawy, …
