The program that turns Russian highly enriched uranium into U.S. electricity isn't as significant a boon to nonproliferation as advertised.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain wants a new arms control agreement with Moscow. Whether he can secure such a pact is another matter.
From the moment Washington and Moscow announced their "123 agreement," the pact has been attacked from all sides. But its opponents are misguided.
In theory, the idea of providing fuel for new nuclear power plants seems like a good way to stem weapons proliferation. But then there are the practicalities.
Washington's decision to use a missile-defense interceptor to destroy a disabled spy satellite in space came at a high political cost but minimal military gain.
Prideful talk of new missiles, submarines, and bombers actually reveals weak Russian leadership and a stubborn military-industrial complex that's preparing to fight yesterday's wars.
By supplying Iran with nuclear reactor fuel, Moscow might have taken an important step in preventing countries interested in nuclear power from enriching uranium indigenously.
If, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, it's "silly" to expect the United States never to misplace its nuclear weapons, shouldn't Washington rethink its reliance on such weapons?
U.S. political leaders such as Barack Obama might be willing to discuss making a nuclear-weapon-free world a reality, but in Moscow, the tone is decidedly different.
For years, Washington worried that a lost Soviet nuke could fall into insidious hands. But after misplacing six of its nuclear weapons, the security of the U.S. arsenal is being questioned.
Russia seems amenable to working with the United States on arms control. But for any measures to succeed, Washington needs to be a willing partner.
If both Russia and the United States allow the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to lapse, they will lose another opportunity for dialogue.
Welcome to the latest version of the missile defense debate, which doesn't sound all that different from the superpower posturing of the Cold War.
Russia's first president took an idealistic, human approach to nuclear disarmament--attributes lacking from today's arms control discourse.
Oddly enough, the U.S.-Russian row over missile defense is exactly what needed to happen for the two countries to start talking again.
Moscow has long helped Tehran with its nuclear power program, especially the reactor at Bushehr. So why the sudden change of heart?
The plan to deploy U.S. missile interceptors in Eastern Europe has toughened Moscow's rhetoric and threatens to further chill U.S.-Russian relations.
With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expiring in 2009, neither Russia nor the United States appear interested in further nuclear cuts.