Weaponry & Arms Sales

Refine By:
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.

Read
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.

Read
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?

Read
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.

Read
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.

Read
Response, Sep/Oct 2004
Merrill A. McPeak and Robert A. Pape
Read
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.

Read
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.

Read
Essay, Jul/Aug 2001
John Newhouse

The Bush administration claims national missile defense can protect the United States from long-range missiles fired by rogue states. But that threat is trivial, and Washington's unilateralist approach to missile defense will only anger China and Russia while alienating U.S. allies.

Read
Review Essay, Jul/Aug 2001
Robert Jervis

Under the Bush administration, U.S. nuclear strategy is shifting from deterrence to defense. In The Price of Dominance, Jan Lodal argues that this is a mistake and explains why multilateral cooperation is crucial for a sensible post-Cold War nuclear strategy.

Read
Syndicate content