icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm

START-ing again? Miles Pomper, senior fellow at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies

In late 1945, George Orwell prophesied that atomic bombs, instead of blowing the world to pieces, are more likely to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging a “peace that is no peace.” This view of strategic stability has survived the Cold War and just got a new lease on life as Russia and the United States prolonged the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, barely a week before its expiration. But the debate whether the nukes are the main threat, or the main provider of peace is still as explosive as ever. To explore this, Oksana is joined by Miles Pomper, senior fellow at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.


Oksana Boyko @OksanaBoyko_RT
Worlds Apart @WorldsApart_RT