While the current environment continues to challenge the United States, future threats will further weaken America’s nuclear weapons stockpile without action. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review called for nuclear modernization and the time is now to act and secure our strategic deterrent for the future.
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, preceded by wide debate, is enjoying a honeymoon of sorts. Domestically, it received strong support and close to full funding while internationally, it has received strong support from allies. However, controversy over the NPR may be just around the corner. There needs to be strong bipartisan commitment to nuclear infrastructure and delivery system modernization as well as arms control.
Is the 2018 NPR achieving one of its intended purposes—assuring allies in East Asia?
Concealing an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy could allow Russia to complicate U.S. and NATO policymaking more than revealing it and the absence of a formal doctrine might not prevent Moscow from attempting to “escalate to de-escalate” in a confrontation.
The European Trilateral Track 2 Nuclear Dialogues, organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), has convened senior nuclear policy experts from the United Kingdom, France, and the United States (P3) for the past nine years to discuss nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation policy issues and to identify areas of consensus among the three countries.
The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI), with the support of Northrop Grumman Corporation, hosted a half-day conference to discuss U.S. nuclear policy and strategy.
A collection of analysis pieces on the Trump Administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review compiled by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
Any decision stemming from the Nuclear Posture Review that risks derailing political support for modernization could, at the end of the day, weaken deterrence if the result is insufficient funding for the current plan.
Is the balance between world security and the guarantee of continued life on this planet a possible scenario? Even if it’s not, perhaps the lesser of both evils is the right choice in this conundrum.