The election has made me contemplate the following question: should even the President of the United States, regardless of party or the individual involved, have the unilateral authority to order the use of nuclear weapons under all possible circumstances?
Latest in nuclear weapons
The ICJ has dismissed the Marshall Islands’ nuclear nonproliferation litigation against the United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan for lack of jurisdiction. But the close votes are a warning for states that half the judges possess a remarkably broad view of what constitutes a valid dispute.
The shift in our conception of the most pressing national security threats of our time—from state-orchestrated nuclear apocalypse to radical terrorism—has had tremendous implications for what we look for in our leaders when assessing their ability to handle national security. Trump is proof.
As the Nuclear Security Summit gets underway, the Marshall Islands’ legal offensive against nuclear weapons states quietly plods along.
While world powers and Iran were embroiled in last minute negotiations last week, Brookings hosted a panel discussion on the meaning of another power’s recent nuclear threats: Russia's. In recent months, Russia has rattled the saber, with Vladimir Putin remarking on his nuclear options during the Crimea crisis and making a mild threat to nuke the Danish navy. Given that Russia maintains enough nuclear muscle to destroy the world---theoretically anyway---how seriously should we take these provocations?