Nuclear Issues

Scholars have argued that acquiring nuclear weapons should allow states the luxury of exiting conventional arms races. In turn, a decreased budgetary focus on conventional arms should make possible greater spending on social welfare. The author contests this logic of nuclear substitution by examining its most likely exponent, Pakistan. As a poor, underdeveloped state, a nuclear Pakistan should have welcomed the opportunity to cease its arms race with India, and spend greater sums on its population's welfare. Instead, the article shows that Pakistan has doubled down on its pre-nuclear conventional posture, mainly because of its revisionism over Kashmir.

The United Nations should thoroughly review its optimum role in a transforming world, because its existing contradictory policies risk damaging its credibility and efficacy for years to come.

Failure to develop a comprehensive contingency plan, such as the one proposed here, and inform the American public, where appropriate, about its particulars will only serve to amplify the devastating impact of any nuclear attack on a U.S. city

The most significant challenge facing the U.S. in an increasingly unstable Middle East today is understanding the rise of the Shi'ites across the region.

"How has a state whose founding fathers were secular people who believed in rule of law and democracy drifted toward religious extremism and authoritarianism? Three primary factors—variations on the Triple A theory of influence (Allah, the Army, and America)—have led Pakistan down this path: a powerful independent military, the mushrooming of religious militant groups, and the hydra-headed monster that is the intelligence services."

The United States and its Asian allies agreed last week to restrict the availabliity of shoulder-fired light weapons. This initiative is wholly polistive, and it is a reversal of previous American policy. But will it do any good? Does it really deal adequately with the larger problem?

While noting that much of this burden will continue to fall on the United States (given its overwhelming military capabilities), the author cautions the U.S. leadership from going it alone. The breadth and depth of the terrorist threat, he argues, require a global coalition that can tackle the problem on a variety of fronts: political, economic, intelligence, and legal.

Dr. Ashton B. Carter in Foreign Affairs.

Carter, Deutch, and Zelikow addresses the threat of Catastrophic Terrorism in Foreign Affairs.

Op-ed by Dr. Ashton B. Carter and Dr. Graham T. Allison in The Washington Post