In a conflict between Russia and NATO in the Baltic, the risks of escalation leading to nuclear use—deliberately, inadvertently, or accidentally—would be dangerously high. NATO must enhance deterrence against Russia while simultaneously pursuing resilience and risk-reduction measures.
Major changes in the global nuclear landscape may soon put renewed pressure on the nuclear dimension of NATO’s deterrence strategy.
Nowhere are nuclear dangers growing more rapidly than in Northeast Asia. Join Carnegie for a discussion, hosted jointly with Nagasaki University, of the most urgent nuclear challenges facing international actors in this increasingly tense region.
The rapidly changing security environment in Northeast Asia complicates any scholarly conjecture about the future of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence in the region.
Germany’s complicated relationship with nuclear weapons could turn into a big risk for European security.
Widening the role of nuclear weapons and appearing to blur the distinction between nuclear war and fundamentally less catastrophic threats is neither necessary nor helpful to making America great again.
In the 55 years since unseen nuclear bullets were dodged in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States’ technical capabilities to gather intelligence have improved breathtakingly. Still, it is extremely difficult to know how foreign adversaries perceive their situation and calculate their moves.
The president’s unilateral nuclear authority comes from decisions made at the start of the Atomic Age.
On the North Korea nuclear threat, global leaders have an obligation not to avoid reality.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a report estimating that the nuclear force plans that the Trump administration inherited from its predecessor would cost $1.2 trillion between 2017 and 2046, and outlining options to reduce or delays costs.