The epithet “Cold War,” as applied to nuclear strategy, is almost never meant kindly. No part of the intellectual inheritance from the Cold War is more frequently maligned than the concept of strategic stability.
Senator Marco Rubio’s opposition to Rose Gottemoeller’s nomination represents a departure from a time when nuclear matters were treated as critical enough to warrant serious bipartisan public debate.
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.
As U.S. and Russian arsenals are built down, consideration must be given to multilateral nuclear restraint.
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.
At its Chicago summit, NATO reaffirmed its commitment to its European-based arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons.
The future of U.S. nuclear weapons is being hotly contested in Congressional debates over the budget. The result is serious uncertainty in defense planning, and that comes with a cost.
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.