North Korea fired off multiple short-range missiles after denouncing Washington for going forward with joint military exercises with South 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 U.S. and North Korean leaders in 2017—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
North Korea said two years of diplomacy with the U.S. had failed, and vowed to increase its nuclear weapons capabilities.
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.
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.
India and Pakistan remain embroiled in a territorial dispute over Kashmir that has lasted nearly seven decades.Each state is expanding its nuclear arsenal and capabilities, raising the stakes further.
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.
Territorial disputes between China and India have added an additional level of complexity to the region’s political situation.
- 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
Pakistan’s Prime Minister ruled out talks with India, saying they cannot happen until New Delhi restores the semi-autonomous status of the disputed region of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan announced a surprise agreement for a cease-fire in the area along the so-called Line of Control.
Pakistan’s envoy to the United Nations has warned that the possibility of a war between his country and India remains one year after the neighboring rival moved to take total control over a stretch of their disputed border region of Kashmir.
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.
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 seems to be rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenals, which currently stands at roughly 350 weapons, with some estimating it could double or triple in the next decade. Recent reports indicate China may be building hundreds of silos that could house new nuclear missiles. Meanwhile the U.S. continues to invest in new nuclear weapons and upgrades to the current arsenal of roughly 3,800 weapons.
- 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 Senior Advisor Jon Wolfsthal argues for a renewed commitment to nuclear risk reduction and deescalation measures.
The new Woodward and Costa book shows why no president should have “sole authority” to start a nuclear war
Program Director Jessica Sleight lays out the case for ending Presidential sole authority over U.S. nuclear weapons.
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.
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.
U.S. withdrawal from key treaties, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Open Skies Treaty, and similar investments in upgrading and expanding its nuclear capabilities have further inflamed tensions. Both Russia and NATO have been hedging against possible future conflict with new technological capabilities, large-scale military exercises, and troop build-ups in border regions.
The extension of the Russia-U.S. New START agreement, the last treaty limiting each sides nuclear arsenals, and the resumption of Russia-U.S. strategic stability talks are welcome steps but action to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict is still urgently needed.
- Russia, the U.S. and the other NATO states commit not to issue public threats of nuclear first use
- Russia and the U.S. pursue a phased de-alerting program of all land-based nuclear-armed missiles
- Russia and the U.s. implement existing agreements for a Joint Data Exchange Center
- Russia and NATO states fully implement, strengthen existing, and pursue new accident-prevention agreements related to aviation and incidents-at-sea beginning with the Baltic and Black Sea regions
- Russia and NATO states agree to limits and more transparency on military exercises
- Russia and NATO states reinvigorate European conventional arms control efforts, including limitation of forward deployments of conventional weapons, replacement of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and modernization of the Vienna Document
In the News
Global Zero Senior Advisor Jon Wolfsthal joins the Hidden Forces podcast to share his insights into U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrine and decision-making protocols.
Global Zero Senior Associate for Research & Policy Emma Claire Foley joins other experts in explaining the potential implications of the Russian attack on Chernobyl.
Global Zero Senior Associate for Research & Policy Emma Claire Foley comments on Russia’s recent targeting of Chornobyl and the risk of nuclear escalation.
Global Zero Junior Partner for Strategy, Policy & Partnerships Jessica Sleight Joins the Ploughshares Fund’s Michelle Dover, Representative Ted Lieu, and Terrell Starr for a conversation on nuclear risks and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Global Zero Senior Associate for Research & Policy Emma Claire Foley joins Amy McGrath, former Marine Corps fighter pilot and member of the Ploughshares Fund Board of Directors and Mari Faines, Director of Communications and Outreach at Physicians for Social Responsibility for a discussion of the war in Ukraine and the risks of nuclear escalation.