The White House must overcome internal divisions to come up with a comprehensive North Korea policy that incorporates both China and America’s regional allies.
What are the practical implications of a nuclear ban treaty?
What is the future of the INF Treaty, why is Russia violating it, and how should the U.S. respond?
A closer look at what the IAEA does helps make clear why cutting its funding is short sighted, risks U.S. security, and should be rejected by even a thrifty Congress.
As the North Korean atomic crisis gathers momentum, the Trump administration is suggesting that the option of letting the East Asian allies acquire nuclear options is on the table.
Both the United States and China have to recognize the reality, if not the legitimacy, of each other’s fears about North Korea and make concessions that indicate their good faith in eventually moving toward a Korean Peninsula that is united.
There is no clear, internationally accepted definition of what activities or technologies constitute a nuclear weapons program. This lack of definition encumbers nuclear energy cooperation and complicates peaceful resolution of proliferation disputes.
A world without nuclear weapons would be, in the long term, a better world than today’s. But, with treaty negotiations about to start at the UN, it is time to be blunt about the practical implications of a ban, as opposed to its principled ambitions.
Washington must present a credible threat to Pyongyang, while leaving the door open to talks.
New tailored incentive packages may be needed to dissuade the development of sensitive nuclear technology by allies and partners of the United States.