As North Korea develops an array of missiles that could deliver a nuclear weapon to the continental United States, that further complicates the tension over defending U.S. allies in the region.
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.
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.
The conference brought together over 800 experts and officials from more than 45 countries and international organizations.
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.
New tailored incentive packages may be needed to dissuade the development of sensitive nuclear technology by allies and partners of the United States.