What are the timing implications of North Korea's latest missile test?
Since 2014, the United States has publicly accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In light of reports that Russia has already deployed a significant number of prohibited missiles, the Trump administration will face the tough decision about whether or not to remain committed to the treaty.
As the nuclear weapon states face increasing international pressure to make new progress on disarmament, signing and ratifying a treaty for a nuclear free zone in the Asia-Pacific should be a top priority.
The U.S.-Russian relationship is broken, and it cannot be repaired quickly or easily.
The lack of any apparent strategy and political determination in both India and Pakistan to establish a peacemaking process is dangerous. Continued violence across the Line of Control, the lack of progress in redressing the suffering and the interests of Kashmiri Muslims, and the absence of sustained serious diplomacy between India and Pakistan leave the two countries one high-casualty terrorist attack away from war.
President Trump’s only realistic option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear march is reinvigorated diplomacy, followed by significantly ratcheting up the pressure if it fails.
The likelihood of North Korean nuclear and missile tests over the next six months is fairly high if the Trump administration continues the Obama administration’s unsuccessful approach of “strategic patience.”
The question of the resilience of arms control and disarmament institutions to different political or other pressures rests mainly on their continued ability to function effectively.
Critical differences between Chinese and U.S. thinking about nuclear weapons and deterrence result not merely from differing security environments and levels of military strength; they also exist because China and the United States have developed their own nuclear philosophies in implementing their security policies over many years.
What is the current relationship between disarmament and strategic stability? How might arms control and disarmament change in the twenty-first century? What relevance does the security environment have in current and future arms control initiatives?