Deterrence stability is a better framework for conceptualizing and redressing the nuclear challenge in South Asia than focusing on preventing "loose nukes" and nuclear terrorism.
As China and India’s nuclear and conventional capabilities evolve, there is a growing need to establish an open dialogue to overcome misperceptions and opacity surrounding each country’s nuclear posture.
India and Pakistan are entangled in a long-standing security competition, but they are chasing vastly different goals—and certainly aren't locked in an arms race.
It is important that Washington and Moscow take steps toward compromising on ballistic missile defense cooperation now as a foundation for effective engagement with Beijing in the future.
Since 1998, the evolution of nuclear postures and arsenals in both New Delhi and Islamabad no longer appears to evoke the same degree of international concern, or even interest.
The way that the United States behaves regarding nuclear deterrence is vital to sustaining morale in the U.S. army and winning public support in the United States and among allied states.
It is tempting for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to turn to nuclear technology as part of a larger strategy to counter Iranian influence in the region.
While NATO can extend the status quo in the short term, it cannot postpone resolving its defense and deterrence dilemmas without undermining Alliance confidence and cohesion.
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.
Though most states that want a nuclear weapon can get one through determined effort, the fact remains that most choose not to proliferate. Turkey is no exception.