Although the Obama administration has pledged to formulate its nuclear policy around the concept of strategic stability, there is major disagreement on the meaning of concept and whether it is a sound basis for policy.
Despite Washington's efforts to construct stronger ties with China, relations between the two countries have been repeatedly buffeted by a series of tensions and misunderstandings.
One of the defining geopolitical narratives of this past half-decade has been the emergence of the Indo-Pacific as the maritime epicenter of global activity. In reality, however, the sudden recognition of the Indian Ocean’s centrality is anything but a new phenomenon.
The nuclear landscape in South Asia is dynamic, a complex mixture of politics, technology, and emotion. Analysis of these issues is often overshadowed by partisanship and hyperbole.
The drone debate should stimulate more careful thinking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.
Since the term "strategic stability" first entered the nuclear lexicon, there have been calls to redefine it.
India and Pakistan need more than incremental steps toward peace and stability in South Asia—they must also make symbolic leaps.
Reducing nuclear risks was a signature issue in President Obama’s first term. However, following a series of successes in 2010, progress has stalled.
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.