As North Korea makes steady progress in its nuclear program, the United States must continue to strive for stability in the Korean peninsula.
For NATO, balancing deterrence and assurance measures to its easternmost allies without entering a new arms race is an urgent task.
Opponents and skeptics fear that the dynamics surrounding a nuclear ban treaty will distract attention and effort from the nonproliferation regime that has helped prevent nuclear war since 1945, and that has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more states and to terrorist organizations.
The Trump administration should use its leverage to address Japan’s growing piles of unused plutonium.
The United States, South Korea, China, and Japan must work together to offer a combination of security and economic incentives to make denuclearization a reasonable alternative for North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
The dangers of nuclear proliferation and the policy responses to it should be assessed differently if nuclear weapons do not significantly augment a possessor’s coercive power.
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.
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.