Weaponry & Arms Sales

Refine By:
Comment, Mar/Apr 2011
Sunil Dasgupta and Stephen P. Cohen

With India planning to buy $100 billion worth of new weapons over the next ten years, arms sales may be the best way to revive Washington's relationship with New Delhi, its most important strategic partner in the region.

Essay, Jan/Feb 2010
Bruce Gilley

As Taipei drifts further into Beijing’s sphere of influence, the United States must decide whether to continue arming Taiwan as a bulwark against a rising China or step back to allow the Taiwanese people to determine their own future.

Comment, Nov/Dec 2009
Mitchel B. Wallerstein

Strict export restrictions are making U.S. businesses less competitive and the country less secure. Policymakers must craft new regulations to help, rather than harm, U.S. interests.

Response, Nov/Dec 2009
Thomas Donnelly, Philip Dur, and Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr.

Andrew Krepinevich's vision for the U.S. military underestimates Washington's existing commitments and capabilities, Thomas Donnelly and Philip Dur argue. Not so, replies Krepinevich, and now is no time to stay the course.

Postscript,
Michael O'Hanlon

The Obama administration's cancellation of a missile-defense network in Europe is not a sign of misguided weakness, but rather the result of a prudent reexamination of U.S. priorities. But what will come in its place?

Essay, Sep/Oct 2007
Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky

The Bush administration has adopted a misguided and dangerous nuclear posture. Instead of recycling antiquated doctrines and building a new generation of warheads, the United States should drastically reduce its nuclear arsenal, strengthen the international nonproliferation regime, and move toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.

Essay, Jan/Feb 2005
John Deutch

The nuclear threat has been transformed since the end of the Cold War, but Washington's nuclear posture has not changed to meet it. The United States should scale back its arsenal while allowing limited nuclear tests, shaping its nuclear force to bolster nonproliferation without undermining deterrence.

Response, Sep/Oct 2004
Merrill A. McPeak and Robert A. Pape
Essay, Mar/Apr 2004
Robert A. Pape

Precision air weapons have revolutionized modern warfare, but not by making it easier to kill enemy leaders. Decapitation alone still doesn't work; wars are still won by pummeling troops in the field. The new weaponry makes it easier to hammer the enemy's forces from the air--but only when they are kept in place by ground forces.

Comment, Mar/Apr 2003
George Perkovich

The White House's radical new strategy to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction will likely make the world less secure, not more.

Syndicate content