Since the term "strategic stability" first entered the nuclear lexicon, there have been calls to redefine it.
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.
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.
The nuclear order is under pressure as the distance between nonaligned states and nuclear weapon states grows.
As European and international security experience transitional changes, it remains to be seen whether the United Kingdom will be able to continue to pursue a nuclear strategy defined by deterrence at the lowest possible levels of conflict.
While security conditions in Europe remain relatively benign, NATO states should recapitalize their security commitments and clarify their crisis decisionmaking procedures.
As Washington and Beijing continue to build on decades of successful strategic nuclear discussions, the U.S. military must find a way to promote a more effective dialogue with China’s military.
Even after the world reaches the long-for goal of zero nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence will continue to have a vital policy role for some time to come.
Calls for Seoul to seek deployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea have become frequent in recent months, spurred in great measure by North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010.
Congressman Michael Turner spoke on the House defense act and its relation to the New START agreement, further nuclear reductions, U.S. nuclear targeting strategy, missile defense, and non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe.