North Korea’s motivations for pursuing nuclear capabilities have changed over time, but are rooted in a sense of existential threats coming from outside the regime.
The North Korean nuclear crisis is far from over, and foreclosing escalation pathways is in the best interests of the United States, its allies, and Pyongyang.
Tensions continue to mount between the U.S. and North Korea, prompting questions on the deterrence relationship and the reliability of North Korea's nuclear capabilities.
As North Korea makes steady progress in its nuclear program, the United States must continue to strive for stability in the Korean peninsula.
As tensions between the United States and North Korea continue to simmer, questions arise concerning what war with a nuclear-powered North Korea would look like.
Increased risk-taking concerning North Korea’s nuclear ambitions could potentially pay off, but there’s a catch.
North Korea’s steady development of nuclear forces raises questions about why Pyongyang used its nuclear program to pursue coercive diplomacy in the past, and when the regime was in the strongest position to leverage this nuclear latency as an instrument of compellence against the United States.
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?
North Korea has nuclear weapons, something that won’t change anytime soon. As bad as this is, recognizing that status in a way that paves the road for South Korea to follow suit would be even worse.