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?
The risk of an inadvertent nuclear war is rising because of the entanglement of non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons and their command-and-control capabilities.
The Iran nuclear deal is merely the cornerstone of a broader, longer-term strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to diminish and counter Iran’s threatening behavior—from its growing ballistic missile arsenal, to its dangerous use of regional proxies, to its human rights abuses at home.
Every one of the very real challenges Iran poses in the world would be made more difficult to manage if Iran were freed of the nuclear limits agreed in the JCPOA, and every one of them would be made more difficult if the United States isolates itself from its partners.
North Korea’s nuclear arsenal exists to stop other countries’ quest for regime change in Pyongyang.
The risks of a military conflict with North Korea is growing day by day. Not talking has not slowed North Korea’s advance, and sanctions alone will not achieve the desired result.
Adding to pressure from loss of know-how and high costs, U.S. nuclear power plant vendors are now challenged by Chinese and Russian exporters whose government owners view nuclear energy in strategic, not commercial terms.
The goal of denuclearizing North Korea is not dead, but the United States and its partners must accept that it will take time to realize this goal and that, in the meantime, there are real dangers that must be prevented from unfolding.
Will a new Nuclear Posture Review reassure allies concerning the United States’ nuclear policy?
The United States, South Korea, China, and Japan must work together to offer a combination of security and economic incentives to make denuclearization a reasonable alternative for North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
A closer look at what the IAEA does helps make clear why cutting its funding is short sighted, risks U.S. security, and should be rejected by even a thrifty Congress.