As the number of missile-wielding states grows and as the nuclear club expands, the likelihood of a missile being unleashed against the American people or their allies—whether by mistake, miscalculation, or a madman—also grows. Missile defense doesn’t eliminate the danger, but it does give us a fighting chance to confront it.

After North Korea’s successful ICBM test on July 4, does the Trump administration have any realistic policy options to deter the Kim Jong-un regime?

Here, in the middle of the centennial anniversary period of World War I, we still find ourselves in the shadows of the Great War—and still have much to learn from it.

One area, happily, where President-elect Donald Trump has left little room for concern, at least during the campaign, is missile defense.

The United States must pursue policies that ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent is safe, reliable, and credible. Reserving the right to resume nuclear testing is one such means to maintain such a credible deterrent.

Not only is the United States morally justified to possess nuclear weapons and to credibly threaten their employment, it would be immoral and inimical to the principles of Christian just war theory for the U.S. government to adopt the disarmament agenda.

It was a day, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, when “the pride of our nation” began a battle…

The United States and NATO have zero tolerance for the use of nuclear weapons and would exact a punishing response against Russian leadership and/or military facilities ensuring there would be no second strike, to put it lightly. At least, this is what the U.S. government should make Waterford-crystal-clear.

Many have rightly said Europe should have a more effective military force. However, Trump wrongly implies that bases in Germany do not serve any national interests, and he may even be wrong to imply that America has troops in Germany primarily to defend Europe.