The world would be a much safer place without nuclear weapons but nuclear-armed states’ belief in the efficacy of “deterrence” continues to stymie progress at the UN.
If Scotland votes yes for independence this week, the chances of the UK having to disarm its nuclear arsenal rise dramatically–and the global non-proliferation regime needs just such a shot in the arm. But even a close no vote should be cause for reassessment over the future of Trident.
NATO’s summit this week offers the opportunity to turn the tide against the re-emergence of the cold war in the context of the Ukraine crisis. It is an opportunity, however, unlikely to be taken.
The renewal of the “independent British nuclear deterrent” has met remarkably little debate in the UK. Except in Scotland, that is.
Despite Hiroshima's scars, history cruelly reveals one instance after another in which the US elected to maintain the power of nuclear weapons for statecraft, squandering opportunities to de-escalate in favor of building the case for the national security state.
What will it take for negotiating parties to reach a lasting deal over Iran's nuclear programme–and what does it mean for the non-proliferation regime?
As violence in Iraq threatens to overshadow nuclear talks between the US and Iran, we must avoid the tendency to rely on simplistic binaries, and instead recognize the linkages between these challenging dynamics to encourage cooperation.
Russia's moves into Crimea have sparked almost reflexive predictions of a new cold war. But NATO members once again fail to understand its lessons, continuing to squander opportunities for arms control, cooperation and dialogue.
The belief that unilateral reductions in the UK’s nuclear-weapons arsenal would have no beneficial international impact is deeply engrained in officialdom—deeply engrained and wrong
The Non-proliferation Treaty has survived for nearly half a century but it has not fostered nuclear disarmament—and it could be facing decay
