How the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review differs from its predecessors—and what that means for the United States’ nuclear policy.
In this article, Tristan Volpe reviews Rachel Whitlark’s article, “Nuclear Beliefs: A Leader-Focused Theory of Counter-Proliferation.”
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.
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.
The world is vastly different from when the nuclear order was built: proliferation risks and interest in nuclear energy are much lower, but regional insecurities raise danger of escalatory warfare. Meanwhile, the have/have not inequities impair cooperation to restore the foundation of order.
Unlike during the Cold War, critical decision-making in the Nuclear Suppliers Group today is beset by its members' geo-strategic politics today for very specific reasons.