Editor’s note

By | November 1, 2016

The international community, or a segment of it, has instituted a variety of arrangements to constrain the flow of missiles and missile technology to countries (and non-state actors) that lack them. These arrangements have achieved some success but have also demonstrated serious shortcomings. Not all supplier nations are equally committed to missile nonproliferation. Determined proliferators, if unable to gain missile technology through other means, can reverse-engineer existing missiles or – eventually – produce indigenous technology. After all, missile technology is already decades old. Below, authors from India, Japan, and Turkey debate the following questions: Can the spread of missile technology be constrained? If so, how – and if not, how should the world respond to the reality of missile proliferation?

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Get alerts about this thread
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments