Why the United States does not currently have a long-term strategy for dealing with its most fundamental foreign policy challenges and why it needs one.
The risk of nuclear use is increasing, and not only as a result of politics. Changes in military doctrine and technology—especially in the context of growing multipolarity—also drive this risk.
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.
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.
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.
The perception that the United States is seeking the removal of the North Korean and Iranian governments has negative effects that remain underappreciated in Washington
To reduce danger, we need less bombast and better communication.