Conventional thinking holds that nuclear weapons are cheaper than non-nuclear weapons. In other words, they ostensibly represent a means for a state with limited conventional forces to level the playing field.
At a time when the international spotlight seems trained on North Korea and Iran, a growing tolerance for India's belligerence in building its nuclear capabilities appears to shield it from similar scrutiny.
Between India's elites failing to see expected returns, masses denied energy and sustainable development and U.S. plans thwarted by the Indian legislature, the India-U.S. nuclear deal has been a lose-lose-lose deal.
Many of us who'd just like the world to be free of the nuclear weapons have noticed that President Obama seems to have a soft spot for disarmament. Finally, we can take a deep breath and relax. Right? Uh, no.
Has the time come to reverse Reagan's saying and declare "Verify, but trust"? Even David Kay, who led inspections in Iraq, believes that for a weapons-inspection program to work, "a prerequisite is trust."
To those of us who'd like to see a shortened route to disarmament, the mother of all nuclear weapons reports disappoint. On the other hand, it's awash in keen observations. I'll highlight some of those here.
The argument of nuclear optimists is that nuclear weapons may have ended great-power wars of conquest. In turn, a nuclear "pessimist" might ask: How can the death of 10 million possibly be spun as a national-security success?