Over the past decade, American strategists have debated how to attack deeply buried military targets, some of which might protect chemical or biological arms. The Bush Administration has proposed, among other options, new nuclear weapons, and in doing so has ignited a storm of protest. This review assesses some of the recent scientific debate surrounding this dilemma, and concludes that while these weapons would not be as ineffective as some detractors have charged, their advertised advantages are to be viewed with considerable skepticism.
To read the full article go to Foreign Policy.
For all of us who care about preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, what’s the best way to keep preventing that? [The JCPOA is] not perfect, but it’s something. These conventions are never based on the premise that all the parties are telling the truth, it’s about enforcement mechanisms. No arms control agreement is based in trust.