Nuclear Crisis Group member Thomas Countryman and other experts offer insight on the possible consequences of U.S.-Iran conflict for U.S. negotiations with North Korea.
The Korean peninsula has emerged as an epicenter of nuclear tensions.
North Korea’s nuclear program has accelerated in recent years, and the increasing frequency of tests—as well as the extravagant threats traded by US and North Korean leaders— stoked fears across the region and beyond.
The April 27, 2018 meeting of the South and North Korean leaders at Panmunjom offered hope of a solution to the conflict that tore the region in two seven decades ago. However, ongoing intelligence assessments, and the statements of Kim Jong Un himself, suggest that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have not been laid to rest by this latest round of diplomacy.
- North Korea and the U.S. refrain from nuclear threats and adopt nuclear no-first-use statements
- North and South Korea fully and consistently implement communication links between their military leaders
- North Korea, the U.S. and South Korea refrain from provocative military actions that could escalate to nuclear conflict
- The U.S. and the international community implement progressive North Korean sanctions relief and economic assistance in parallel with progress on denuclearization
In the News
Jon Wolfsthal, director of the Nuclear Crisis Group, makes a guest appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss President Trump’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Demilitarized Zone.
“On Thursday, Jon Wolfsthal, director of Global Zero’s Nuclear Crisis Group, and former nuclear expert for the National Security Council under Barack Obama’s administration warned that President Donald Trump’s summit in North Korea is nothing more than an ‘illusion of progress.'”, Raw Story reports.
North Korea disputes Trump and says only wanted 'partial' lifting of sanctions in exchange for nuclear dismantlement
Jon Wolfsthal, director of the Nuclear Crisis Group, referenced in article about the Hanoi Summit. He said while the breakdown in talks was a disappointment, that there is still room for diplomacy.
Exclusive: Former National Security Council, Jon Wolfsthal, says ‘North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities are more dangerous than when Trump took office’.
India and Pakistan remain embroiled in a territorial dispute over Kashmir that has lasted nearly seven decades.
The relatively recent acquisition of nuclear weapons by both countries has raised the stakes further, and territorial disputes between China and India have added an additional level of complexity to the region’s political situation.
Most incidents take place across the Line of Control, established in 1972 as a provisional border between India- and Pakistan-controlled areas of the region. Attacks by militant groups, which India alleges have been trained by Pakistan, are an additional driver of conflict.
- India and Pakistan jointly declare that both seek to avoid the use of nuclear weapons
- India and Pakistan establish bilateral norms of nuclear weapons safety and security and discuss exchanges of verifying information
- India and Pakistan fully implement and enhance hotline agreements between national and military leadership
- India and Pakistan commit to non-deployment and non-assembly of land and air-based nuclear weapons
In the News
India’s longest-range ballistic missile, Agni-V, will be inducted into the nuclear arsenal very soon, according to official sources.
When America and the Soviet Union developed anti-missile systems in the 1960s, the opposing superpower either built more missiles, or increased the number of [nuclear] warheads on existing missiles, to saturate enemy defenses.
Shirin Mazari, a prominent Islamabad-based scholar under consideration for appointment as Pakistan’s next defence minister by soon-to-be prime minister Imran Khan, publicly advocated nuclear strikes on Indian population centres in the event of war between the two countries, a review of her work by Firstpost has revealed.
U.S. | China
In recent years, China has worked to cement its influence in the South and East China seas, including its claims on the Spratly and Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, constructing artificial islands and conducting high-profile military exercises in both areas. However, these claims are contested by several other states in the region, and United States policy supports maintaining the international status of both areas.
- China and the U.S. adopt a bilateral nuclear no-first-use agreement
- China and the U.S. urgently expand, enhance and empower diplomatic and military-to-military dialogues to facilitate strategic stability, nuclear doctrine and transparency
- China and the U.S. fully implement recently established bilateral agreements to avoid military accidents at sea and among aircraft in close proximity
- China and the U.S. reaffirm efforts to preserve stability across the Taiwan Strait and reaffirm and implement reciprocal agreements not to militarize newly constructed islands in the South China Sea
In the News
Global Zero Program Associate Emma Claire Foley lays out the need for a unified U.S. approach to China policy that takes nuclear risks seriously.
Nuclear Crisis Group Director Jon Wolfsthal is quoted on U.S. ambitions to negotiate a trilateral arms-control treaty with Russia and China to replace New START.
Trump’s desire to engage with China is a good one, but it is unrealistic to expect China to enter into arms control agreements with the U.S. & Russia at this point, argues Nuclear Crisis Group Director Jon Wolfsthal to the New York Times.
President Donald Trump’s administration released a review of US missile defenses on Thursday that totally reimagined how the US will fight nuclear wars. Global Zero’s Bruce Blair cited as expert.
In a new report released on Tuesday, Global Zero’s Dr. Bruce Blair, a former Air Force launch control officer who’s a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, argues that the United States’ nuclear stance is a “vestige of the Cold War” that creates instability with an unnecessarily hefty price tag.
U.S./NATO | Russia
Tensions between NATO member states and Russia have been elevated since the beginning of the conflict of Ukraine in 2014, but Russia’s current drive to modernize and expand its military capabilities dates back to the beginning of President Putin’s first term, nearly two decades ago.
Allegations that Russia has violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty have further inflamed tensions and prompted similar accusations of US misconduct. Both sides have been hedging against possible future conflict with new technological capabilities, large-scale military exercises, and troop build-ups in border regions.
The future of the New START treaty, a US-Russia treaty which expires in 2021 and can be extended for five additional years, remains uncertain.
- The presidents of Russia and the U.S. agree to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
- Russia and the U.S. initiate immediate and intensive discussions to resolve Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty compliance concerns
- Russia, the U.S. and the other NATO states commit not to issue public threats of nuclear first use
- The U.S. and Russia relaunch strategic stability talks focusing on potential dangers flowing from existing and potential nuclear deployments, doctrines and modernization programs
- Russia and the U.S. pursue a phased de-alerting program of all land-based nuclear-armed missiles
In the News
'Makes Us All Safer': Biden Admin Announces Five-Year Extension of New START Nuclear Treaty With Russia
Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson is quoted in Common Dreams’ coverage of New START extension.
The Bangkok Post quotes Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson on New START extension: “Unless you’re a defense contractor, this is good news for everyone.”
Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson highlights the critical importance of New START in Newsweek’s coverage of the Biden administration’s decision to extend the treaty: “The treaty is an essential guardrail against nuclear arms-racing that imposes equal limits on U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons.'”
Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson is cited in Raw Story’s coverage of the Biden administration’s decision to pursue New START extension.
Global Zero CEO Derek Johnson is quoted in Vox’s coverage of the Biden administration’s decision to pursue extension of New START.