Nonnuclear weapons are increasingly able to threaten dual-use command, control, communication, and intelligence assets that are spaced based or distant from probable theaters of conflict.
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.
The chance to end North Korea’s test program should be seized and, if successful, could form the basis for expanding direct contact and trust between Washington and Pyongyang, while expanding the global norm against nuclear testing.
How the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review differs from its predecessors—and what that means for the United States’ nuclear policy.
Widening the role of nuclear weapons and appearing to blur the distinction between nuclear war and fundamentally less catastrophic threats is neither necessary nor helpful to making America great again.
As the Trump administration develops its Nuclear Posture Review, the temptation of small nuclear weapons is back.
The risk of an inadvertent nuclear war is rising because of the entanglement of non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons and their command-and-control capabilities.
The risk of a nuclear war is rising because of growing non-nuclear threats to nuclear weapons and their command-and-control systems.
What are the realistic implications of North Korea's nuclear capability?