The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review includes a threat to consider using nuclear weapons if an adversary attacks U.S. command and control capabilities.
The New START Treaty continues to provide benefits to both Russia and the United States, despite Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Why did the United States move from a position of nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1960s to one of nuclear parity under conditions of mutual assured destruction in 1972?
Implementation of the NSG guidelines—including by Pakistan—should significantly reduce the likelihood that Saudi Arabia will enrich uranium anytime soon.
The rapidly changing security environment in Northeast Asia complicates any scholarly conjecture about the future of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence in the region.
How the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review differs from its predecessors—and what that means for the United States’ nuclear policy.
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.
Before the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2017, the G20 countries’ reactions to the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty were based on their own interests and loyalties.
For all if its complications, direct arms reduction engagement offers the best hope of heading off another disastrous cycle of nuclear one-upmanship between Washington and Moscow.
The reason why the false ballistic missile alert in Hawaii was such an issue is precisely because it took place against a background of very high tensions.