For over a decade the United States has sought to develop non-nuclear weapons that could hit distant targets in a short period of time. Debate about this Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program has been dominated by one issue—the possibility that Russia (or another observing state) might mistake one of these weapons for a nuclear weapon and launch a nuclear response. Unfortunately, this narrow focus ignores other, more serious strategic risks as well as strategic benefits. James Acton, author of the recent Carnegie report Silver Bullet: Asking the Right Questions about Conventional Prompt Global Strike?, will discuss these risks and benefits, and analyze the extent to which the risks can be mitigated by unilateral and cooperative approaches.