Paper
James M. Acton, Ankit Panda
{
"authors": [
"James M. Acton"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Technology, Doctrine, and the Risk of Nuclear War
The risk of nuclear use is increasing, and not only as a result of politics. Changes in military doctrine and technology—especially in the context of growing multipolarity—also drive this risk.
Published on Jun 1, 2018
Source: American Academy of Arts and Sciences
A war between two nuclear-armed states has become all too imaginable. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russia’s relations with the United States are now probably worse than U.S.-Soviet relations during at least some phases of the Cold War. Stresses between China and the United States, including from the former’s land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea, are not as serious and have not built up as quickly, but a sustained détente is unlikely anytime soon. In the six years since Kim Jong-un assumed the leadership of North Korea, Pyongyang’s provocative behavior has sunk U.S.–North Korean relations to a level not seen in decades. Indeed, the two states are now engaged in a serious, if slow moving, crisis over North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Meanwhile, even if the Indian-Pakistani relationship is not especially bad at the moment—if judged by its own low standards—it could deteriorate rapidly and at any time.
The possibility of nuclear use would hang over a deep crisis or conflict in any of these dyads. Fortunately, the day-to-day likelihood of nuclear use is prob - ably still lower than it was during the Cold War. Certainly, the risk of nuclear use—the product of consequence and probability—almost certainly remains much smaller. Nonetheless, this risk is increasing, and not only as a result of politics. I will argue in this paper that changes in military doctrine and technol - ogy—especially in the context of growing multipolarity—also drive this risk, including in ways that are frequently overlooked....
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
- The Fallout of the U.S.–Canada Trade War Won’t Be Limited to North AmericaCommentary
U.S. trading partners in Asia are closely watching the dispute for signs of how it may affect their own interests.
Barbara Weisel
- Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from CeutaCommentary
The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.
Richard Youngs
- America Walks Away from Global DemocracyPaper
By abandoning past U.S. pro-democracy policies and adopting several lines of pro-autocratic action, the Trump administration has fundamentally repositioned the United States vis-à-vis democracy in the world.
Thomas Carothers
- American Power: A View from ChinaPaper
Chinese strategists are once again debating whether American power is declining and whether U.S. hegemony is experiencing irreversible decay.
Wu Xinbo
- Is the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Moving From the Gold Standard to a Gilded Standard?Commentary
Congress should ask tough questions about the agreement’s more unique features and whether they advance U.S. interests or compromise them.
Jane Darby Menton
