TRUMP AND PUTIN REACH NO DEAL AT SUMMIT ABOUT UKRAINE, MISS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTIONPresident Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday afternoon in Alaska, purportedly to meet about ending the war caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Given that Ukrainian leadership was not in the room, it was already unlikely that the meeting would lead to an agreement. Trump had said before the summit that a ceasefire was necessary to a peace deal, but the two leaders left the summit without any known deal — and without Russia facing any consequences in the form of sanctions or tariffs. Putin said the two reached an agreement to “pave the path towards peace in Ukraine” but Trump made it clear there was no deal. Trump also said that it’s up to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make peace now, effectively placing responsibility on the victims. It should be up to Russia to withdraw. Still, Zelenskyy is expected to meet with Trump in Washington on Monday. Our initial analysis of the summit is this: it was a giant win for Putin. Having the summit in the United States — when he has been ostracized by the West since his invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — was a win for Putin. Facing no economic consequences was a win for Putin. Trump treating Putin far better than he treated Zelenskyy was a win for Putin. And avoiding billions of dollars in potential economic sanctions for the cost of a plane ticket to Alaska is a better fate than an increasingly desperate Russian leader deserves. Further, there is no indication that the leaders of countries with the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals discussed reducing nuclear risks in any way, a huge missed opportunity. This is despite the last remaining arms control agreement limiting their arsenals expiring in February, and just weeks after Trump and a top Russian security official exchanged nuclear threats online, rhetoric that Executive Director and former Congressman John Tierney called “inappropriate and unhelpful.” |
80 YEARS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS LONG ENOUGH ALREADYAugust 6 and 9 marked 80 years since the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. While it’s difficult to know exactly how many people died instantly and in the immediate aftermath of those two bombings — the low estimate is 110,000 — one thing is certain: nuclear weapons are too dangerous to ever be used again. For eight decades now, people like you have been instrumental in avoiding another such catastrophe. Together, we’ve helped shine a light on the injustices nuclear weapons cause, from the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; to the illnesses, shame and guilt thrust on survivors; to the generations of Americans who still face disproportionate levels of radiation-born illnesses caused by decades of nuclear testing. The courage of these survivors to share their stories and call for a world free from nuclear weapons should inspire and motivate us all to continue their struggle. In the long-term, that looks like raising awareness of the ongoing importance of reducing nuclear threats. We have been able to get rid of 80% of the global nuclear arsenal so far, from about 70,000 at the height of the Cold War to about 12,000 today. But further progress will require greater effort. We can’t undo the past, but we can take small actions today to work toward a better future. Just by reading this newsletter, you are taking one such action. Take others: forward this newsletter to one or more people with a note about why nuclear weapons issues matter to you. Share your thoughts on the dangers of nuclear weapons with your online networks using the hashtag #HumanRaceNotArmsRace. Listen to the Center’s latest Nukes of Hazard podcast episode in which we interview the granddaughter of a Hiroshima bombing survivor about the importance of keeping her story alive, or the Nukes of Hazard episode we released five years earlier in which the daughter of the same survivor explains how learning what happened to her mother decades later changed the trajectory of her life. Through our actions today, we can break the cycle of nuclear arms racing and escalating nuclear threats. We can honor those killed and those who survived by continuing the work to make sure these weapons are never used in war again. We can make sure the nuclear story ends as soon as possible, not with a devastating nuclear exchange but with the elimination of nuclear weapons. |
IRAN THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM CRITICAL TREATY AS THREAT OF SANCTIONS LOOMS
In a recent letter to the United Nations, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany reportedly indicated their willingness to trigger the snapback process outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (better known as the Iran nuclear deal) if Iran fails to resume nuclear talks with the West and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency by the end of August.
The letter mentions the offer of a limited extension of the deadline; however, the European parties have yet to receive a response from Iran. The snapback process allows the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran, which are set to expire in October unless one of the remaining parties to the deal triggers the snapback option. This is a move that Iran has warned vehemently against, with former Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki telling Iranian media that the country is ready to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if international sanctions are reintroduced.
NORTH KOREA REJECTS U.S. PROPOSALS FOR DIALOGUE; GOODWILL MEASURES STILL UNDERTAKENIn early August, South Korea dismantled loudspeaker systems along the DMZ in what officials described as a goodwill measure, though it was not formally linked to a broader negotiation track with the North. In a surprise reciprocal move by Pyongyang, North Korea began dismantling its own loudspeaker infrastructure days later, though it’s unclear if the mutual goodwill will translate into a further easing of tensions. By late July, Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of Kim Jong Un, rejected renewed U.S. proposals for dialogue, reiterating that North Korea’s nuclear status was “non-negotiable.” North Korea then responded to the annual U.S.–South Korean summer military drills with sharp warnings, calling them a rehearsal for invasion and threatening unspecified countermeasures. State media paired these threats with continued emphasis on expanding the size and capability of the country’s nuclear arsenal, framing it as essential to deterring hostile U.S. and South Korean forces. |
CHINA RELEASES DETAILS OF NEW NUCLEAR-CAPABLE BALLISTIC MISSILE TESTIn early August, Chinese state media disclosed new video and details about a September 2024 missile test, officially identifying the system as a road-mobile DF-31AG intercontinental-range ballistic missile capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear payloads. Around the same time, Beijing also released footage supposedly of the interior of one of its new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. By mid-month, Chinese and Russian naval forces held joint exercises in the Sea of Japan. While officially billed as maritime security drills, state media coverage stressed the operations’ role in countering external interference, a thinly veiled reference to the United States and its allies. |
INDIA, PAKISTAN ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF NUCLEAR SABER-RATTLINGOn August 11, Pakistan’s Army’s chief of staff reportedly made an explicit nuclear warning to India during a speech on U.S. soil, remarking that any mistake by New Delhi could risk a catastrophic response. The remarks, made at a diaspora event, drew condemnation from India, which warned that Pakistan was engaged in “nuclear saber-rattling” and acting irresponsible in light of recent tensions. Pakistan said the Army official’s remarks were misinterpreted. The episode occurs on the heels of a brief but volatile military confrontation in May between the two nuclear-armed nations. |
BILL AUTHORIZING INCREASES IN WEAPONS AND NEW MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM CLEARS COMMITTEESLast month, the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate considered and overwhelmingly advanced their versions of the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Theoretically, the next step is floor votes in both chambers and then a conference committee to settle differences between the House and Senate versions; however, in recent years, the Senate has not had a floor vote before conference. The Center recently published our analysis of the Senate’s initial version of the NDAA, which details plans to move ahead on the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense system, the nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and the beleaguered Sentinel missile system that is already well behind schedule and 81% over budget. |
NEW ON THE NUKES OF HAZARD BLOG: LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECISION-MAKING AND SWITZERLAND’S HANDLING OF NUCLEAR SMUGGLERS
How Looking Into the Future Helps Reevaluate the Present, by Program Coordinator Emma Sandifer: Sandifer was recently selected as a Ploughshares Foundation and Horizon 2045 Nuclear Futures Fellow, a prestigious fellowship for early- and mid-career emerging experts. As part of this fellowship, she participated in a one-week intensive last month that introduced her to the building blocks of systems and futures thinking in nuclear threat reduction.
“I now understand that thinking through logical policy responses to theoretical future crises is a necessary aspect of nuclear threat reduction work which is often, understandably, overlooked in favor of current crises,” Sandifer writes. “That is why fellowships like this are so important — to force us to take a moment to look beyond the threat landscape as it appears right now and develop a more nuanced understanding of how the world works together as an interconnected system.”
AI Should Help Nuclear Decision-Makers but Not Make Decisions, by Jack Higgins, Summer 2025 Policy Intern: The United States plans to spend $1.7 trillion to modernize its nuclear forces over the next 30 years with artificial intelligence set to play a major role in the effort, but will it be a worthwhile investment? Higgins breaks down the benefits and risks of AI implementation and how the United States and others can maximize the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks. Learn more about Higgins’ time as an intern at the Center.
3 Lessons from Switzerland’s Weak Punishment of Nuclear Smugglers, by Abby Wagner, Summer 2025 Policy Intern: Nearly 20 years ago, Switzerland let a family of nuclear smugglers off the hook. Wagner explains how that choice revealed how a narrow concept of neutrality, weak export laws and greed can fuel nuclear proliferation and threaten global security — and offers critical lessons for the future of nuclear security. Learn more about Wagner’s time as an intern at the Center.
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIAWe are on X (formerly known as Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Threads and Bluesky. Follow us for the latest national security and nuclear weapons news on your favorite platforms |
CONSIDER BECOMING A MONTHLY OR ROUND-UP DONORWith only a few clicks today, you can set the Center up for long-term success by setting up monthly donations. You could also consider making a one-time gift or joining our round-up program through which you can donate change from your purchases, up to your pre-set amount, each month. |
