Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
The United States could withdraw the tactical weapons it deploys in Europe with no negative consequences for NATO unity and the security of Europe. In order to secure such an outcome, German leaders and NATO policymakers will have to combine reassurance and arms control in novel and smart ways.
There are three guiding principles that can help make future arms control dialogues more successful.
Strategic arms control is more vital than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Pragmatic negotiations toward a follow-on treaty need to begin now.
The (justified) jubilation over normalization with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain should not obscure the failure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.
Where is nuclear arms control—negotiated restraints on the deadliest weapons of mass destruction—headed?
Conventional long-range strike weapons of US allies may exacerbate Chinese concerns about the survivability of its small nuclear arsenal against a precision pre-emptive strike from the US-led coalition, although the degree of the new threat depends on various factors including the numbers and types of such weapons to be deployed.
Amid new players and lapsed treaties, nuclear arms control has lost its way. It should refocus on one priority: ensuring against catastrophic escalation.
Effective nuclear arms control engagement with China will likely require confidence-building measures by the United States and greater support from the international community.
The hard realities of North Korea’s nuclear program require a new approach by the United States.
The end of the INF Treaty and debates over NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements could spell the end of nuclear arms control.