Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War: Guidelines for U.S. Policy
Nuclear weapons and strategy for their use were a key element of the Soviet-American confrontation. With the meltdown of the Cold War, what should be their role? To answer this question Harvard's Center for Science and International Affairs brought together a group of young strategists, unfettered by past dogma but well-tutored in the discourse of the defense community. What emerged is an excellent and substantial body of fresh thinking about the proper role of nuclear arms, American in particular, in the post-Cold War era. Among the well-analyzed recommendations: U.S. targeting priorities should be shifted from Russian strategic forces and command centers to conventional forces and war-supporting industries, and most if not all nonstrategic nuclear weapons of the United States and the former Soviet Union should be eliminated through arms control agreements.
Related
Ronald Reagan's dream never died; it only faded slightly. Star Wars is still with us in a scaled-back form. Although theater missile defenses -- popularized by the Gulf War's Patriots -- are now widely accepted, debate still rages over a nationwide system. Republicans worry about rogue states and terrorists with nukes, Democrats worry about angering Russia and violating treaty obligations, and neither side listens to the other. America is pouring billions of dollars into research and development, ignoring the fundamental flaws that missile defense has yet to overcome.
Last year's nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan brought world attention to the decades-old Kashmir conflict. Claimed by both countries, the former princely state has been ravaged by a war that shows no sign of ending. Both rivals have invested heavily in blood and treasure to make Kashmir their own. Now Afghan-trained mujahideen are leading the fight, bringing their own foreign brand of radical Islam. Neither New Delhi nor Islamabad has ever asked what Kashmiris want. They would not like the answer: more than anything else, Kashmiris hope to be left alone.
As Cold War threats have diminished, so-called weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles -- have become the new international bugbears. The irony is that the harm caused by these weapons pales in comparison to the havoc wreaked by a much more popular tool: economic sanctions. Tally up the casualties caused by rogue states, terrorists, and unconventional weapons, and the number is surprisingly small. The same cannot be said for deaths inflicted by international sanctions. The math is sobering and should lead the United States to reconsider its current policy of strangling Iraq.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.