In a context of intensifying great power competition and deep divergences of view between nuclear and non-nuclear powers on the urgency of nuclear abolition, ‘nuclear risk reduction’ has gained renewed attention as a pragmatic framework for managing and progressively reducing nuclear dangers.
Benoît Pelopidas and Ryan Snyder engage the claim that we have entered a "new era of counterforce". Instead, we show how such claims are based on an absence of analysis of fundamental physics and that assumptions of a particular tradition of nuclear thinking makes such findings foregone conclusions.
This essay reflects on Stanley Hoffmann’s contributions as a scholar and public intellectual. We focus on Stanley Hoffmann’s scholarly, intellectual and ethical legacy by highlighting two sets of contributions, where his work challenged much international relations scholarship in the second half of the 20th century. First, we identify the ways in which his research speaks to important policy concerns, whilst maintaining a certain detachment from the corridors of power.
The post-cold war generation of citizens is forgetting nuclear weapon-related dangers and becoming indifferent to the issue. At the same time, the absence of mass grassroots, anti-nuclear protest suggests tacit support for current nuclear weapon policies. These three common diagnoses are potentially contradictory and, more importantly, are only assumptions. This paper is the first systematic attempt at assessing the attitude of the under 30s generation of European Union (EU) citizens with regard to nuclear weapons.
