President Barack Obama should articulate a narrowed framework for the legitimate use of nuclear weapons that the United States believes would be defensible for others to follow as long as nuclear weapons remain.
Reducing nuclear risks was a signature issue in President Obama’s first term. However, following a series of successes in 2010, progress has stalled.
Disarmament efforts have reached an impasse. Breaking the stalemate requires creating a security framework that addresses the concerns of all states.
The governments driving the new Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative should consider pressing states to clarify the roles they assign to nuclear weapons and exploring a standard of use.
As U.S. and Russian arsenals are built down, consideration must be given to multilateral nuclear restraint.
The absence of favorable conditions for establishing a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East presents significant challenges.
The United States and Russia have reached an arms control impasse, and no new agreement is on the horizon. Concrete confidence-building measures could help build trust.
In contemporary discussions about nuclear disarmament, few pause to ask why–and indeed whether–transparency is desirable.
A referendum on Scottish independence scheduled for autumn 2014 could have profound ramifications for the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent and for U.S.-U.K. relations.
Skeptics and supporters alike tend to ignore the practical realities of deep nuclear reductions. Nuclear-armed states will only agree to deep reductions if several demanding conditions are met.