- All
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- Defense Policy
- Domestic Politics
- Foreign Policy
- Obama Administration
- GW Bush Administration
- Clinton Administration
- GHW Bush Administration
- Reagan Administration
- Carter Administration
- Ford Administration
- Nixon Administration
- Johnson Administration
- Kennedy Administration
- Eisenhower Administration
- Truman Administration
- FD Roosevelt Administration
- Pre-1932 Administration
- Grand Strategy
- Legal Issues
- Foreign Aid
- Public Diplomacy
- Govt. Institutions
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 19
- next
Shortly after taking office, Obama traveled to Prague to lay out a vision of a world "free of nuclear weapons." Now the Pentagon has prepared a top-secret memo for the White House, and the president has to decide whether to maintain or shrink the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Now he must decide whether he will uphold the principles he once preached.
As part of Foreign Affairs' The Iran Debate: To Strike or Not to Strike, Georgetown Professor Colin H. Kahl took questions submitted to the conversation from Twitter.
In accepting the Nobel Prize in 1949, William Faulkner asked, "There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" A device capable of annihilating humankind fundamentally altered the way states calculated their relationships to the rest of the world.
Opponents of military action against Iran assume a U.S. strike would be far more dangerous than simply letting Tehran build a bomb. Not so, argues this former Pentagon defense planner. With a carefully designed attack, Washington could mitigate the costs and spare the region and the world from an unacceptable threat.
As Nicholas Thompson writes in his review of a new biography of the scholar-diplomat, "George F. Kennan had two really big ideas. The first was containment, which he presented in the 'X' article, published in Foreign Affairs in 1947, but which he had been refining for years in speeches. The idea was that there is a middle ground between diplomacy and war. If the former fails, the latter is not inevitable. ... Kennan’s second big idea wasn’t original, but it was important. The word some political scientists use to describe it is 'realism'; another way to put it is that Kennan was skeptical about American competence in foreign affairs.”
Relations between Washington and Seoul have never been better. But if the two do not reconcile differences on North Korea and seal the deal on a Free Trade Agreement, the alliance will suffer.
Two trends represent Korea today: South Korea's extraordinary economic boom and North Korea's stagnation and provocation. To move the peninsula forward, writes one of South Korea's leading politicians, regional and international players must take a bolder and more creative approach to achieving security.
Even as the Obama administration talks about a world free of nuclear weapons, it has proposed a major campaign to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Despite what critics say, this effort is vital, since maintaining a credible deterrent requires possessing weapons that a president might actually use.
Is reducing the world's nuclear arsenals to zero possible, or even desirable? Bruce Blair, Matt Brown, and Richard Burt argue that it is; Josef Joffe and James Davis disagree.
Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb would upend the Middle East. It is unclear how a nuclear-armed Iran would weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of brinkmanship, meaning that it could be difficult to deter Tehran from attacking the United States' interests or partners in the region.
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 19
- next
