Commentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
Nuclear Reset: Arms Reduction and Nonproliferation
The concept of nuclear disarmament as an essential condition for nuclear nonproliferation is again entering the realm of practical politics, but the movement toward nuclear disarmament is extremely difficult and fraught with great dangers.
By Alexey Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, Natalia Bubnova
Published on Oct 25, 2012
Source: Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center
The continued image of nuclear arms as an indispensable pillar of superpower security combined with the absence of progress on the issue of nuclear disarmament spurs the risk of nuclear proliferation and eventually military or terrorist use of nuclear arms. Nuclear Reset: Arms Reduction and Nonproliferation refutes the argument put forward by many politicians and experts, both in Russia and internationally, of a “civilizing effect” of nuclear weapons in international relations—implying nuclear states’ restraint in their foreign and military policies in the face of fears of nuclear catastrophe.
The book argues that after decades of heated debate the concept of nuclear disarmament as an essential condition for nuclear nonproliferation is again entering the realm of practical politics. Since genuine and consistent movement toward nuclear disarmament is extremely difficult and fraught with great dangers; realism and professionalism is required, taking into account all of the subtleties and the political, economic, military, and technological interrelationships around the issue. The book suggests that in this context there is a need for thorough and well-grounded linkage of all of the elements of the process and both its bilateral and multilateral formats.
About the Authors
Alexey Arbatov
Alexey Arbatov is the head of the Center for International Security at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
Vladimir Dvorkin
Major General Dvorkin (retired) is a chief researcher at the Center for International Security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
Natalia Bubnova
Former Head of Content Production, Moscow Center
Natalia Bubnova was head of content production at the Carnegie Moscow Center. She previously served as deputy director for communications at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
- In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone AttacksCommentary
The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
