Russia

The arguments in favor of the United States' declaring that the only purpose of its nuclear weapons is to deter others who possess them from using theirs — in other words, that in no circumstances will this country use nuclear weapons first — are far stronger than the arguments against this stance. It must be hoped that the next US administration will take this no-first-use step promptly.

Stephen Walt writes that the United States' unusual historical experience, geographic isolation, large domestic market, and general ignorance have weakened its ability to make viable foreign-policy strategies.

The International Security Program (ISP) is still accepting applications for 2020–2021.  ISP is a multidisciplinary research group that develops and trains new talent in security studies by hosting pre- and postdoctoral research fellows. 

As we are all well aware, the original Cold War, which officially ended 40 years ago this month, featured a number of close calls that almost turned it into a hot war. Thankfully, neither the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 nor the Able Archer exercise of 1983 (nor any other perilous incidents), led to a war between Washington and Moscow. More recently, however, respected statesmen have again begun to sound alarms. “Not since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis has the risk of a U.S.-Russian confrontation involving the use of nuclear weapons been as high as it is today,” former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn warned in a recent article in Foreign Affairs. I have expressed some doubts about this proposition, but it is nevertheless worth asking what it is—other than the fear of mutually assured destruction—that keeps the U.S. and Russia from stumbling into a war today or tomorrow. Part of the answer lies in the bilateral and multilateral agreements specifically designed to prevent incidents that could escalate into a war. 

States are more likely to reveal secret military capabilities during peacetime competition when the effects of the asset in question can be substituted with another military advantage and when the adversary is not equipped with countermeasures.

Stephen Walt writes that several important events occurred in 2019, but few did anything to significantly alter global trends.

• Russians View Terrorists as Third Most Probable Source of Nuclear Attack
• U.S. Adopts New Strategy for Countering of WMD Terrorism
• Elbe Group Calls for U.S.-Russian Cooperation against Terrorism
• Belfer Center Experts on Combatting Complacency about Nuclear Terrorism
• Can Threat Emanating from Jihadists of Central Asia Have a WMD Dimension?
• NTI and CENESS on Radiological Risks in Central Asia
• Hecker Assesses Probability of Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism
• Luxembourg Forum: It’s Vital for US and Russia to Intensify Cooperation to Combat Nuclear Terrorism

At last month's Paris Peace Forum, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GSCS) issued its report on how to provide an overarching cyber stability framework. Combined with norms, principles, and confidence-building measures suggested by others, the GCSC's conclusions are an important step forward.

With 2019 on pace as one of the warmest years on record, a major new study from the University of California, Davis, reveals how rapidly the Arctic is warming and examines global consequences of continued polar warming.