Observers have put forward varying explanations suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes, through nuclear threats, to achieve some current or future tactical edge in his face-off with Ukraine and NATO. But none of that reasoning erases a dangerous reality: Any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons would create unprecedented conditions that could easily lead not to Russia's advantage, but to a wider nuclear war that would decimate Russia—and its leadership.

Experts react to Putin's decision to suspend the New START nuclear arms treaty between Russia and the United States.

While audiences around the world watched the breathless media coverage of US President Donald Trump’s follow-up summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the proud owner of perhaps 10-20 nuclear weapons, they may have missed escalating military tensions between India and Pakistan, two countries with almost 300 nuclear warheads between them. The recent crisis … Continued

A junior, far-right minister in the Israeli government was suspended indefinitely on Sunday after he suggested that it would be “an option” for Israel to use a nuclear weapon in Gaza.

We all know the saying that you can't be a little bit pregnant--either you are or you aren't. According to Henry Kissinger, getting nuclear weapons is like getting pregnant. In a Washington Post op-ed published on Nagasaki Day, Kissinger wrote, "The root cause of our decade-old controversy with Pyongyang is that there is no middle ground between North Korea being a nuclear-weapons state and a state without nuclear weapons."

Exaggerating, probably.

Looking at the secret origins of the often-overlooked Israeli nuclear weapons program

In an op-ed entitled “The U.S. Needs More Nukes,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens laid out his case against arms control: “the bad guys cheat, the good guys don’t,” and all the while, the US nuclear arsenal is becoming “increasingly decrepit.” It’s a simple narrative; it’s also false. In fact, Stephens’ article is largely littered with bad analogies, flawed assumptions, and straight-up incorrect facts about the nature of nuclear weapons and arms control.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published a revelatory new article that describes how the United States nuclear forces modernization program has been mischaracterized to the general public as a reasonable effort to update the safety of US nuclear warheads. The authors, Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew G. McKinzie, and Theodore A. Postol, write that … Continued

In the world of nuclear policy wonking, Tuesday belonged to Matt Korda, a research associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (and a co-author of the Nuclear Notebook column that the Bulletin has published since 1987). In his essay for Inkstick, “At #NUKEFEST, we asked all the wrong questions,” Korda asserted that last week’s Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference had failed to address the “single most important issue within the nuclear field—the health and sustainability of the field itself.”

For immediate release: January 15, 2016 Bulletin Media Contact: Janice Sinclaire, [email protected] CHICAGO– January 15, 2016 – The nuclear agreement that Iran and six major world powers signed in 2015 has focused attention on Middle Eastern nuclear politics. But as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Executive Editor and Publisher, Rachel Bronson, observes, that deal … Continued

Editor's note: This article is largely drawn from Ramana's featured piece in the report "Assuring Destruction Forever," edited by Ray Acheson and published in April 2012 byReaching Critical Will.

Who can be mobilized as a counterweight to the perpetuation of the nuclear arsenal?Workers in the nuclear weapons complex, doctors, independent scientists, and journalists all have direct interests in nuclear disarmament. 

While beliefs about national sovereignty and international law matter, when it comes to arms control treaties, ideological considerations rarely trump pork-barrel politics. Would a senator from a state dependent on the nuclear weapons complex oppose an arms control treaty not on the basis of ideology, but because the treaty would mean the loss of jobs or funding in their home state? Absolutely.

A free-access magazine on missile defense. A new website. It's all happening on Monday.

Watch the Bulletin virtual program, “The UK’s new nuclear posture: What it means for the global nuclear order” featuring Hans Kristensen and Heather Williams in conversation with Julian Borger.  

Since the United States and Russia might soon sign a new treaty that limits their strategic nuclear weapons, it's natural to wonder about Washington and Moscow's tactical nuclear weapons, which the treaty won't cover. The hope is that the momentum for a nuclear-weapon-free world, the renewed U.S.-Russian negotiations, and the ongoing review of the U.S. nuclear posture and NATO strategic concept will help make progress on reducing nonstrategic nuclear arsenals--an issue that has been largely neglected for more than a decade.

Dear Friends: As the Bulletin’s new Executive Director and Publisher, I cannot think of a more important set of issues than those taken up by our editors, columnists, and contributors.

JOHN MECKLIN The debates: Why nuclear weapons should be a major focus of the 2020 campaign The first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden takes place on September 29th. Dive into Bulletin articles to explore the nuclear weapons questions that citizens and journalists alike should be asking the candidates now, before the election in November. Start … Continued

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group are delighted to announce that the Bulletin will be moving into a partnership with Routledge, part of the Taylor and Francis Group, effective January 1, 2016. Today, the rise in geo-political tensions between the West and Russia, ongoing international environmental debates on climate … Continued