Published Op-eds

This op-ed originally appeared in New Jersey Star-Ledger, May 26, 2019. On May 23rd, the New Jersey General Assembly approved Resolution 230, urging the federal government to pursue a broad range of measures to reduce the danger of nuclear war and to join the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. California and some American cities have already adopted similar resolutions to call for action in Washington on nuclear weapons. Here’s why. It has been understood since the U.S. destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II that the explosion of a single…

This op-ed originally appeared in Defense News, May 10, 2019. President Donald Trump‘s announcement in late April that the U.S. will withdraw its signature from the Arms Trade Treaty is the latest move by an administration innately hostile to nearly every form of international cooperation. In a move that was intentionally deceptive and rife with political theater — with the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association as a symbolic backdrop — the president’s decision damages both America’s security and its credibility. It took more than five years of negotiations to develop the ATT and…

This Op-ed originally appeared in InDepthNews, April 19, 2019. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump have both said they are willing to meet for a third summit but are looking for certain conditions to be met ahead of any meeting. Kim said the United States must be more flexible and Trump is looking for North Korea to demonstrate its willingness to give up nuclear weapons. U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton said in an April 17 interview with Bloomberg that Washington is looking for a “real indication from North Korea that they’ve made the strategic decision…

This op-ed originally appeared in IDN (Indepthnews), April 5, 2019.Consistent with the recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2020 budget request would continue plans to expand U.S. nuclear weapon capabilities.The ultimate fate of the request, submitted to Congress March 11, 2019 remains uncertain as Democrats, particularly in the House, have signaled strong opposition to several controversial funding proposals. Their concerns include administration plans to develop two additional low-yield nuclear weapons and two conventionally armed…

  This op-ed originally appeared in The Nation, Mar. 21, 2019. “There is no higher priority for national defense,” the Pentagon declared last year, than for the United States to “replace its strategic nuclear triad and sustain the warheads it carries.” In plain English, this means spending an estimated $1.7 trillion to rebuild every component of the US nuclear arsenal: the entire three-legged strategic “triad” of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long-range bombers. Military officials claim the existing force has become obsolete…

This op-ed originally appeared in Axios, Feb. 25, 2019. As the second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un approaches, the U.S. continues to focus its attention on the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. Yes, but: If Trump is serious about denuclearizing North Korea, he should also use the summit with Kim Jong-un to take steps toward negotiating a peace agreement and formally ending the Korean War, noting the diplomatic engagements that have taken place between North and South Korea in 2017 that help to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Why it…

This op-ed originally appeared in The Hill, February 20, 2019. As the nation is reminded of the tragic consequences of gun violence with the one-year anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, the Trump administration is pushing forward with plans to expedite the export abroad of the same kind of military-style weapons used in many of the mass shootings that have taken place in recent years. These are not the commodities that the United States should make easier to export. Congress can and should stop the changes, which would put the Department of Commerce in charge of regulating these…

This op-ed originally appeared in Defense One on Feb. 11, 2019. Barring an 11th-hour diplomatic breakthrough that resolves Russian and U.S. concerns about the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, new arms control arrangements will be needed to avert a dangerous and costly new missile race in Europe.  On Feb. 2, both sides announced that they will suspend their obligations under the three-decade-old treaty, and will likely withdraw on August 2. This will scuttle the agreement that led to the verifiable elimination of 2,692 Soviet and U.S. missiles, helped end the Cold War, and paved the…

This op-ed originally appeared in The Nation, Feb. 8, 2019.Ostensibly, President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, announced on February 1, is intended to coerce Russia into admitting that it has violated the accord and then to destroy any weapons so identified. But the closer one looks, the more obvious it becomes that administration hawks, led by National Security Adviser John Bolton, have no interest in preserving the arms-control agreement but rather seek to embark on an arms race with Russia and China—a dynamic that will take us into…

This op-ed originally appeared in Politico Magazine, Dec. 5, 2018. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Tuesday that the United States will soon “suspend” its obligations under 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—an arms-control treaty credited with helping to end the Cold War – in response to the prolonged Russian violation of the agreement. If Russia does not return to compliance in 60 days, Pompeo said, the United States will formally announce its intention to withdraw from the treaty, as President Trump declared he would do last month. The two of us have advised…