North Korea’s steady development of nuclear forces raises questions about why Pyongyang used its nuclear program to pursue coercive diplomacy in the past, and when the regime was in the strongest position to leverage this nuclear latency as an instrument of compellence against the United States.
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?
Trump’s engagement in East Asia has further fueled Russian and Chinese perceptions of the U.S. missile defense system as a threat to their nuclear deterrents.
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.
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.
North Korea has nuclear weapons, something that won’t change anytime soon. As bad as this is, recognizing that status in a way that paves the road for South Korea to follow suit would be even worse.