The Nuclear Crisis Group has identified four major flashpoints where the risks of nuclear conflict are extraordinarily high. Detailed action plans have been developed to address each flashpoint that would dramatically lower these risks as we work to eliminate these weapons worldwide. You can explore each of these nuclear flashpoints — and a menu of politically viable solutions — below.
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.
“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.
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’.
The notion that Mattis, a former four-star Marine Corps general, could have blocked or defied a move by Trump to impulsively launch nuclear weapons may have seemed comforting, but it shouldn’t have been. The secretary of defense has no legal position in the nuclear chain of command, and any attempts by a secretary of defense to prevent the president from exercising the authority to use nuclear weapons would be undemocratic and illegal.
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.
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.
The notion that Mattis, a former four-star Marine Corps general, could have blocked or defied a move by Trump to impulsively launch nuclear weapons may have seemed comforting, but it shouldn’t have been. The secretary of defense has no legal position in the nuclear chain of command, and any attempts by a secretary of defense to prevent the president from exercising the authority to use nuclear weapons would be undemocratic and illegal.
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.
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.
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.
The notion that Mattis, a former four-star Marine Corps general, could have blocked or defied a move by Trump to impulsively launch nuclear weapons may have seemed comforting, but it shouldn’t have been. The secretary of defense has no legal position in the nuclear chain of command, and any attempts by a secretary of defense to prevent the president from exercising the authority to use nuclear weapons would be undemocratic and illegal.
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.
China is pushing ahead with modernising its nuclear weapon delivery systems and has added to its arsenal as it boosts military expenditure, according to a report released by an independent think tank on Monday.
Southeast Asia and China have agreed on a working text to continue long drawn-out negotiations over a code of conduct in the disputed South China sea, with officials on Thursday lauding it as a “milestone” and “great progress.”
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.
Newsweek references Derek Johnson in article about NATO and the future of Russia relations. “If this administration doesn’t want Russia to build INF-banned weapons, it’s hard to imagine a worse approach than suspending the agreement,” Derek Johnson, executive director of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said in a statement.
The decision to withdraw from the INF was not based on a military necessity, but a political one. Jon Wolfsthal explains in The National Interest.
Jon Wolfsthal walks CBC host Jayme Poisson through what’s at stake as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty falls apart. “We ended the cold war once because the public cared about it … the hope is that we’ll do it again.”
“Extending New START is a no-brainer. More nuclear weapons does not result in more security,” Derek Johnson, executive director of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said in a statement emailed to Newsweek.
“The treaty is most consequential in Europe; it’s the place that was protected by the treaty,” said Ellen Tauscher tells TIME reports on the INF Treaty. “The Europeans have a lot at risk here, and the international community at large should not want to see a return to Cold War tactics or deployments.”