Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The United States faces a series of critically important decisions on nuclear procurement, posture, and declaratory policy. Which policies will best ensure effective deterrence while minimizing the risks of escalation and arms racing?
Revisions to the U.S.–South Korea missile guidelines open a new era in Seoul’s space ambitions, but their consequences for regional security are limited.
Seventy-five years ago, U.S. nuclear weapons devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For individual human beings, 75 years signals nearness to the end of life. But for the nuclear age, does this anniversary mark the beginning, the middle, or the end?
If China and the United States can dispel some misperceptions on their dispute over missile defense, it could help forestall a costly, ill-timed nuclear arms race.
As the debate about whether to extend the New START Treaty continues, the treaty’s verification provisions remain one its most powerful tools for ensuring Russia’s compliance with nuclear arms control.
An accomplished negotiator puts nuclear arms control in perspective—what it has achieved, where it has failed, and what it can do for our future security.
The State Department recently sought to clarify U.S. nuclear posture. It, perhaps inadvertently, makes a strong case for negotiating deep reductions in U.S. and Russian high-yield strategic weapons.
Biological viruses and computer malware differ in important respects. They have considerable potential to spread widely, invading, disrupting and destroying their targets.
New START has played a central role in keeping the peace and preventing a dangerous arms race between the two countries that together possess 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.
Congress has set limits on U.S. withdrawal from a major arms control treaty. But President Trump may not feel that he has to abide by them.
Kaplan shows in his new book that the Americans and Russians who built the doomsday machine will not allow it to be dismantled. The more pertinent question is whether they could be motivated to meaningfully downsize and constrain it.