Thanks for the question! In 3 years, this might include:
Overall, “right of boom” interventions make up a larger fraction of funding (perhaps 1⁄4), even as total funding grows by an order of magnitude
There are major public and private efforts to understand escalation management (conventional and nuclear), war limitation, and war termination in the three-party world.
Much more research and investment in “civil defense” and resilience interventions across the board, not just nuclear. So that might include food security, bunkers, transmission-blocking interventions, better P4E, better national stockpiles and distribution systems, resilient crisis-communication systems, etc.
There are multiple ongoing track 2 and 1.5 talks, and eventually official dialogues between the U.S., Russia, and China to better understand each other’s views on limited war and find common ground on risk reduction measures and arms control beyond formal treaty-based tools
Thanks for the question! In 3 years, this might include:
Overall, “right of boom” interventions make up a larger fraction of funding (perhaps 1⁄4), even as total funding grows by an order of magnitude
There are major public and private efforts to understand escalation management (conventional and nuclear), war limitation, and war termination in the three-party world.
Much more research and investment in “civil defense” and resilience interventions across the board, not just nuclear. So that might include food security, bunkers, transmission-blocking interventions, better P4E, better national stockpiles and distribution systems, resilient crisis-communication systems, etc.
There are multiple ongoing track 2 and 1.5 talks, and eventually official dialogues between the U.S., Russia, and China to better understand each other’s views on limited war and find common ground on risk reduction measures and arms control beyond formal treaty-based tools