How many nuclear weapons can India create from its current fissile material stockpile?
Creating a separate fund to protect service budgets from the costs of modernizing strategic nuclear weapons not only cheats the American taxpayer but also fuels an unnecessarily large arsenal stuffed with weapons the United States does not need to remain safe.
The 2016 Nuclear Security Summit highlighted some major successes in nuclear security, but also some of the serious challenges that still must be overcome.
President Nazarbayev outlined his vision for a secure nuclear future, with a special focus on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the role of the IAEA Fuel Bank, and international efforts to curb nuclear terrorism.
Ahead of the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, a new report presents a stark choice: Will the world recommit to continuous improvement in strengthening nuclear security, or will efforts decline and the danger of nuclear terrorism grow?
Nuclear arms remain highly significant in relations and strategic dynamics between the United States and Russia, not simply as symbols but also as instruments of coercive leverage in crisis and deadly weapons in the event of war.
Objectively, prospects for further U.S.-Russian nuclear reductions in the near term are not bright.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly accused the United States of upsetting the strategic nuclear balance by deploying a missile defense system in Europe, but closer examination of the facts reveals a more complex picture.
The United States can deter any country from using nuclear weapons against America and its treaty allies with a nuclear force that is far smaller, less destabilizing, and less expensive than the one the Pentagon is planning to build.
Although yesterday’s test does not mean that North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have taken a qualitative leap forward, it is at least a sign of incremental improvement.