Ask the Experts: How Should the U.S. Address Nuclear Dangers?

Corporation grantees offer guidance on ways the U.S. can help to avoid the escalation of nuclear dangers

By Sharon K. WeinerMay 10, 2023

A Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile drives through Red Square during the nation’s 2009 Victory Day parade in Moscow, commemorating the end of World War II and showcasing Russia’s nuclear capable missiles. (Credit: AFP Photo/Dmitry Kostyukov via Getty Images)

In May 2023, the G7 Summit took place in the Japanese city of Hiroshima — a place of great historical significance in the peace conversation and in the calls for reducing nuclear dangers. The convening provided an opportunity for leaders to determine a consensus and strategy toward global security, to make recommendations, and to create a collaborative roadmap that prioritizes nuclear safety.

Inspired by the commitment of our founder, Andrew Carnegie, to global peace and the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding, we invited Carnegie Corporation of New York grantees — experts in the field of nuclear security — to respond (in approximately 100 words or fewer) to the question: How should the United States assert leadership to address nuclear dangers?

Rachel Bronson

President and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | @RachelBronson1

To assert leadership, the U.S. should actively resist the normalization of nuclear threats by countering those at home and abroad who suggest that the use and consequence of tactical nuclear weapons can somehow remain limited. Additionally, planned spending on nuclear modernization is unnecessary and wasteful and some of that money should be reallocated. Most bravely, the U.S. should announce a commitment to work closely with friends and allies to develop a shared vision in which a future no-first-use policy is understood to strengthen, not weaken, a U.S. commitment to its Asia-Pacific allies and beyond.

Toby Dalton

Senior Fellow and Codirector, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | @toby_dalton

The Korean Peninsula is the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint today. It is time for the United States and its Asian allies to embrace a new policy toward North Korea focused on immediately reducing the threat of nuclear conflict. Pyongyang’s arsenal buildup and nuclear threats are exacerbating crisis escalation dangers and driving discussion in South Korea about developing nuclear weapons. Rather than insisting on the unrealistic denuclearization of North Korea, the United States, South Korea, and Japan should launch a new risk reduction initiative that incentivizes restraint, mitigates escalation dangers, and lowers North Korea’s propensity to threaten nuclear use.

Francesca Giovannini

Executive Director, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School | @fgiovannini123

Most immediately, the U.S. should propose the creation of a consultative group within the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent a nuclear accident at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy’s speech at American University, President Biden should underscore the need to restore global nuclear diplomacy and reaffirm the U.S. commitment to arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and nuclear disarmament. In the longer term, the U.S. should collaborate with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to establish a working group to deescalate nuclear dangers in the Asia-Pacific with China as the mediator.

Daryl Kimball

Executive Director, Arms Control Association | @DarylGKimball

After more than a decade of deteriorating relations and dithering on disarmament, the largest nuclear possessors — Russia, the United States, and China — are on the verge of an unconstrained arms race. Because there is no substitute for U.S. leadership, the U.S. should reaffirm that nuclear use and threats of use are “inadmissible,” reaffirm U.S. readiness to negotiate a new arms control framework to supersede New START, and, to create the conditions for global disarmament, call upon China, France, and the U.K. to freeze the size of their nuclear arsenals so long as the U.S. and Russia maintain caps on theirs.

Zia Mian

Codirector, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

President Biden should state that the United States will accept its moral responsibility as the first country to have used and threatened to use nuclear weapons and will act urgently to adopt policies based on the principle that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” The U.S. accepted this principle at both the 2022 G20 Bali Summit and the 2023 G7 meeting. As a first step, the U.S. should endorse the 2022 statement by 145 nations that “it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.”

Joan Rohlfing

President and Chief Operating Officer, The Nuclear Threat Initiative | @JoanRohlfing

At a time of accelerating risks, the United States must lead the world in rejecting Vladimir Putin’s dangerous nuclear brinksmanship. We can do this by reaffirming our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons, exercising restraint in response to reckless nuclear threats, adhering to our New START Treaty obligations, and discouraging proliferation. We must also lead diplomatic efforts to avert a new nuclear arms race, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and take urgent risk reduction steps, including a global effort to enact “fail-safe” measures to prevent blundering into nuclear war. Let’s be the change we wish to see in the world.

Scott Sagan

Codirector and Professor, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University | @StanfordCISAC

The U.S. should recommit to follow the laws of armed conflict in nuclear operations and call on other nuclear weapons states to do so as well. The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review stated, “The United States will not intentionally target civilian populations.” Former government officials, however, claim that the obscure legal principle of “belligerent reprisal” permits targeting enemy civilians in response to nuclear, cyber, or biological attacks that kill many U.S. or allied civilians. That is a loophole through which escalation to global destruction can occur. President Biden should close that loophole and pledge never to target civilians under any circumstances.

David Santoro

President, Pacific Forum | @DavidSantoro1

The United States should actively “sell” the benefits of nuclear restraint regimes and, more generally, encourage good and responsible strategic behavior, especially by the major powers, even as it is strengthening deterrence, which is necessary as well. The United States should also recognize that arms control is not in the cards for now and, instead, it should seek progress in crisis avoidance and crisis management, chiefly with China and Russia. Progress in that space, as in nonproliferation and nuclear security cooperation, will still be a heavy lift but it is worth the effort.

Elena Sokova

Executive Director, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation | @esokova

Not since the Cuban Missile Crisis has the risk of nuclear weapons use been as high. Russia’s nuclear coercion has already yielded calls for more weapons — with some countries contemplating building their own arsenals. We have been down this path during the Cold War. More nuclear weapons do not bring stability or alleviate threats. Instead, vision and leadership are needed to earnestly engage with both friends and foes, nuclear and nonnuclear states, and, through dialogue and negotiations, reduce risks and reliance on nuclear weapons and chart a path toward their elimination. The Biden administration is well positioned to provide such vision and leadership.

Sharon K. Weiner is a senior resident fellow in the International Peace and Security program at Carnegie Corporation of New York.