DOCSLIB.ORG

Pdf, Accessed 10 August 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Notes Introduction 1 . Kristan Stoddart, Losing an Empire and Finding a Role: Britain, the USA, NATO and Nuclear Weapons, 1964–1970 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) and Kristan Stoddart, The Sword and the Shield: Britain, the USA, NATO and Nuclear Weapons, 1970–1976 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 2 . He eventually defeated Michael Foot in the leadership run-off. Foot would succeed Callaghan as leader in 1980, defeating Denis Healey. 3 . James Callaghan, Time and Chance (London: Fontana, 1988), pp. 385–408. 4 . David McKie, ‘Lord Callaghan Labour prime minister who, uniquely, held all four of the great offices of state, but whose consensus politics were washed away in the late 1970s’, The Guardian , 28 March 2005. 5 . ‘Why grass roots protests are now a “Must”’, The Guardian , 4 March 2010. 6 . Callaghan, Time and Chance , p. 400. 7 . Ibid. p. 448. 8 . Denis Healey, The Time of My Life (London: Penguin, 1990), pp. 388–464. 9 . Ibid. pp. 381, 393, 422–424, 429–435 and Callaghan, Time and Chance , pp. 413–447, 478, 498, 515. 10 . For a comprehensive synopsis see Richard Vinen, Thatcher’s Britain: The Politics and Social Upheaval of the 1980s (London: Simon and Schuster, 2009). 11 . Andy McSmith, ‘Margaret Thatcher obituary: the most divisive political leader of modern times’, The Independent , 8 April 2013. 12 . Quoted in Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders Since 1945 (London: Allen Lane, 2000), pp. 408, 397–436. 13 . www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/collections/BDOHP/Coles.pdf, accessed 10 August 2013. 14 . John Nott, Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Recollections of an Errant Politician (London: Politico’s, 2002), p. 202. 15 . Ibid., p. 217. 16 . Ibid., pp. 210, 222. Dennis Kavanagh, ‘Lord Pym: Leading “wet” in Thatcher’s first cabinet who became Foreign Secretary during the Falklands War’, The Independent , 8 March 2008. 17 . Francis Pym, The Politics of Consent (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1984), p. 41. 18 . Rodric Braithwaite, Across the Moscow River: The World Turned Upside Down (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 52. 19 . Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (London: Harper Collins, 1993), pp. 4, 27. 20 . Ibid., p. 27. 21 . David Alan Rosenberg, ‘The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945–1960’, International Security, Vol. 7 (Spring 1983), pp. 3–71. This line of analysis can also be found in John Baylis, Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy 1945–1964 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). 247 248 Notes 22 . These ministers included the Secretary of State for Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 23 . Stoddart, Losing an Empire and Finding a Role , pp. 9, 27–28, 32–33, 135–139, 229–230. 24 . Now Lockheed Martin. As with the UK effort, a large number of both govern- ment and private contractors each played a part. 25 . Harold Macmillan, At the End of the Day 1961–1963 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1973), p. 335. 26 . G.M. Dillon, Dependence and Deterrence: Success and Civility in the Anglo-American Special Nuclear Relationship 1962–1982 (Aldershot: Gower, 1983). 27 . During the course of both the British Nuclear History Study Group and earlier meetings, the ad hoc nature of the archival preservation process was brought to light, with many documents destroyed or still waiting for security vetting. 28 . Lorna Arnold, ‘A Letter from Oxford: The History of Nuclear History in Britain’, Minerva , Vol. 38, No. 2 (2000), pp. 211–212. 29 . Duff Cooper, Old Men Forget (London: Hart-Davies, 1953). 30 . It may also be the case that participants have a vested interest in shaping the historical record in a particular way in order to justify the role they played at the time. 31 . Peter Hennessy, The Secret State: Preparing for the Worst 1945–2010 (London: Penguin, 2010). 32 . It also draws intellectual reasoning from international perspectives on national nuclear weapons programmes and from the vast literature on British domestic politics, Strategic Studies, Intelligence Studies and Cold War history. 33 . Private interview with Sir Rodric Braithwaite, January 2012. 1 The British Labour Government and the Development of Chevaline, 1976–1979 1 . Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders Since 1945 (London: Penguin, 2000), pp. 392–393. For a more personal recollection see James Callaghan, Time and Chance (London: Fontana, 1988), pp. 449–450. 2 . http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1974/Oct/1974-oct-labour- manifesto.shtml, 18 July 2011. 3 . Kristan Stoddart, The Sword and the Shield: Britain, America, NATO and Nuclear Weapons 1970–1976 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014), pp. 148–159, 159–171, 202–223, 230, 273–275, 277, 280–282. 4 . TNA, DEFE 13/1039, Top Secret Artificer UK Eyes: A Report on the Progress and Status of the Chevaline Project: The Main Report, 1 April 1976. 5 . Ibid. 6 . Kate Pyne, ‘More complex than expected ... the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment’s contribution to the Chevaline Payload’, Proceedings from a confer- ence on The History of the UK Strategic Deterrent: The Chevaline Programme , held at the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, 28 October 2004. Henceforward, Conference at RAES , 28 October 2004. 7 . This is well described in the memoirs of the Prime Minister and Chancellor at the time. See James Callaghan, Time and Chance (London: Collins, 1988), pp. 413–567 and Denis Healey, The Time of My Life (London: Penguin, 1990), pp. 455–456. A Notes 249 non-partisan account can be found in Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders Since 1945 (London: Penguin, 2000), pp. 376–396. 8 . TNA, DEFE 13/752, Annex A to COS 45/72, 25 April 1972. 9 . This issue is covered in detail in Stoddart, The Sword and the Shield , pp. 146–50. 10 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, R.M. to Prime Minister Polaris Improvements , 11 June 1976. A separate minute in the same file also queried whether the renewal of nuclear understandings between the US and UK (which were renewed whenever a new President or Prime Minister came into office) whether Callaghan needed to sign the ‘secret understanding with the President of the United States about U.S. nuclear units in this country. The same also applies on Diego Garcia.’ TNA, PREM 16/1181, R.T. Armstrong to Sir John Hunt , 11 March 1976. 11 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, R.M. to Prime Minister Polaris Improvements , 11 June 1976. 12 . Perspectives on the Soviet ABM programme in this period can be found in Jennifer G. Mathers, The Russian Nuclear Shield from Stalin to Yeltsin: The Cold War and Beyond (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), pp. 91–94 and Pavel Podvig (ed.), Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001), pp. 418–433 and http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_ modest_Expectations_sovie.shtml, accessed 9 April 2014. 13 . Pavel Podvig, ‘History and the current status of the Russian early warning system’, Science and Global Security , Vol. 10 (2002). The current status of these radars can be found at http://russianforces.org/blog/2011/06/daryal-u_radar_in_ mishelevka_d.shtml, accessed 9 April 2014. 14 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, R.M. to Prime Minister Polaris Improvements , 7 July 1976. 15 . http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_modest_Expectations_sovie.shtml, accessed 9 April 2014. 16 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, John Hunt to Mr. P.R.H. Wright Polaris Improvements , 21 June 1976. 17 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, Patrick Wright to J.F. Mayne Polaris Improvements , 6 July 1976. 18 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, Meeting of Ministers: The Nuclear Deterrent Minutes of a Meeting held at 10 Downing Street on Thursday 29 July 1976 at 4.15 pm, 2 August 1976. 19 . More on these financial mechanisms can be found in http://www.cnduk.org/ information/briefings/trident-briefings/item/101-cnd-special-report-the-next- chevaline-scandal, accessed 1 May 2014. 20 . Stoddart, The Sword and the Shield , pp. 142, 167. 21 . TNA, DEFE 24/895, Polaris Improvements , 6 August 1976. 22 . TNA, DEFE 24/895, M. Gainsborough to CPE (Mr Hall) Polaris/Chevaline Costs, 14 October 1976. 23 . TNA, DEFE 24/895, P.J. Hudson DUS(FB) Nuclear Weapons Research , 3 November 1976. 24 . ‘Sir Frank Cooper’, The Daily Telegraph , 30 January 2002. 25 . TNA, DEFE 24/895, Frank Cooper to DUS(FB) Nuclear Weapons Research , 8 November 1976. 26 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, B.G. Cartledge to Martin Vile Nuclear Weapons Policy, 20 July 1977. 27 . Ministry of Defence: Chevaline Improvement to the Polaris Missile System , Ninth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1981–82, HC 269 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1982), pp. v, 3. 250 Notes 28 . These cost rises may have been leaked to the press leading to a speculative article appearing in The Daily Mail in May 1977. The Daily Mail , 16 May 1977. 29 . Lawrence Freedman, Britain and Nuclear Weapons (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1980), p. 54. 30 . Confidential correspondence, October 2002. 31 . TNA, DEFE 24/895, Chevaline Cost Plan , 25 April 1977. 32 . TNA, PREM 16/1181, RM to Prime Minister Polaris Improvement Programme – Nuclear Testing , 8 July 1976. 33 . The role and function of the Penetration Aid Carrier is described in detail in Kristan Stoddart, Losing an Empire and Finding a Role: Britain, the USA, NATO and Nuclear Weapons, 1964–1970 (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2012), pp. 139, 150, and The Sword and the Shield , pp. 47, 62, 157, 165, 170. 34 . Pyne, ‘More complex than expected’, Conference at RAES, 28 October 2004. 35 . TNA, DEFE 13/1039, F.H. Panton ACSA(N) to DCA(PN) Nuclear Test, 19 February 1976. 36 . TNA, DEFE 13/1039, V.H.B. Macklen DCA(PN) to PS/S of S Chevaline Nuclear Warhead Tests , 27 February 1976.
Recommended publications
  • October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force'

    October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force'

    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified October 02, 1963 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force' Citation: “Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 'Paper Regarding Dutch Participation in Talks Regarding a Multilateral Nuclear Force',” October 02, 1963, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, National Archives, The Hague, Council of Ministers, access number 2.02.05.02, inventory number 753 and 723. Obtained and translated by Bastiaan Bouwman. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117766 Summary: Paper presented at 4 October 1963 meeting of the Dutch Council of Ministers. The paper lays out the reasons for declining to participate in the Multilateral Force so far, but argues that due to changes in the situation – principally a turn on the part of the British toward participation – the Netherlands now should move to participate in the talks. The paper lists the (political) advantages of such participation. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). Original Language: Dutch Contents: English Translation Scan of Original Document [...] SECRET Paper regarding Dutch participation in talks regarding a multilateral nuclear force . On 1 August of this year, the Council of Ministers agreed that for now the invitation by the American government to participate in talks of a working group in Washington regarding the establishment of a NATO multilateral nuclear force, consisting of surface ships with mixed crews, would not be acted upon. This invitation had been accepted by the Federal Republic, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Along with the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium decided to remain on the sidelines for the time being.
  • London Calling: BBC External Services, Whitehall and the Cold War 1944- 57

    London Calling: BBC External Services, Whitehall and the Cold War 1944- 57

    London calling: BBC external services, Whitehall and the cold war 1944- 57. Webb, Alban The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1577 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] LONDON CALLING: SSC EXTERNAL SERVICES, WHITEHALL AND THE COLD WAR, 1944-57 ALBAN WEBB Queen Mary College, University of London A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) 1 Declaration: The work presented in this thesis is my own. Signed: '~"\ ~~Ue6b Alban Webb Declaration: The work presented in this thesis is my own. Signed: Alban Webb ABSTRACT The Second World War had radically changed the focus of the BBC's overseas operation from providing an imperial service in English only, to that of a global broadcaster speaking to the world in over forty different languages. The end of that conflict saw the BBC's External Services, as they became known, re-engineered for a world at peace, but it was not long before splits in the international community caused the postwar geopolitical landscape to shift, plunging the world into a cold war. At the British government's insistence a re-calibration of the External Services' broadcasting remit was undertaken, particularly in its broadcasts to Central and Eastern Europe, to adapt its output to this new and emerging world order.
  • Sac's Kissing Cousins

    Sac's Kissing Cousins

    Ground crewmen bring a British RAF Bomber Command Vulcan V-bomber to a high state of readiness. In case of nuclear war bombers of the British V-force would likely spearhead any retaliatory attack. Vuleans, the world's largest delta. wing bombers, carry either conventional or nuclear bombs internally and one Blue Steel standoff weapon externally. Although there are some misgivings about the future, today's British RAF Bomber Command is decidedly a viable force for the 1960s. Here is a report on the powerful capabilities of the United Kingdom's nuclear aerospace force . SAC'S KISSING COUSINS HE officer commanding, seated in the War Room of his operational control center, reached for the T red phone and spoke an order into it which ener- gized his widely dispersed command. The order was a single word—Scramble! A small but superbly trained band of men sprang into action. With machine precision, they raced By Richard Clayton Peet through prescribed checkout procedures, preparing their planes for flight. Jet engines began their roar. Seconds later, hundreds of aircraft were on the roll. In less than two minutes, a giant nuclear retaliatory armada was airborne. Most Americans would immediately conclude that the situation described was taking place in our own Strategic Air Command. We have become accustomed 28 AIR FORCE Magazine • January 1964 Sir John Grandy, Bomber Commander CinC, credits Valiant, first V-bomber, today is used primarily as a tanker. technical innovation and high crew proficiency with Here a Valiant refuels one of the Vulcans that made the first keeping Bomber Command a viable force in the 1960s.
  • BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE Popular Culture and Margaret Thatcher, The

    BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE Popular Culture and Margaret Thatcher, The

    ZÁPADOČESKÁ UNIVERZITA V PLZNI FAKULTA FILOZOFICKÁ BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE Popular Culture and Margaret Thatcher, the Media Image of the “Iron Lady“ Kateřina Tichá Plzeň 2018 Západočeská univerzita v Plzni Fakulta filozofická Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury Studijní program Filologie Studijní obor Cizí jazyky pro komerční praxi Kombinace angličtina – francouzština Bakalářská práce Popular Culture and Margaret Thatcher, the Media Image of the “Iron Lady“ Kateřina Tichá Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Tomáš Hostýnek Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury Fakulta filozofická Západočeské univerzity v Plzni Plzeň 2018 Prohlašuji, že jsem práci zpracovala samostatně a použila jen uvedených pramenů a literatury. Plzeň, duben 2018 ……………………… Touto cestou bych chtěla poděkovat Mgr. Tomášovi Hostýnkovi, za cenné rady a připomínky v průběhu psaní mé bakalářské práce, které pro mě byly velmi přínosné. Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 2 EARLY LIFE 1925 – 1947 .......................................................... 3 2.1 Childhood ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Education ...................................................................................... 3 2.3 Relation towards her parents ..................................................... 4 3 EARLY FORAY INTO POLITICS 1948 – 1959 ........................... 5 4 POLITICAL LIFE 1959 – 1979 ................................................... 7 4.1 Opposition ...................................................................................
  • Materializing the Military

    Materializing the Military

    MATERIALIZING THE MILITARY Edited by Bernard Finn Barton C Hacker Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC Associate Editors Robert Bud Science Museum, London Helmuth Trischler Deutsches Museum, Munich . sCience museum Published 2005 by NMSI Trading Ltd, Science Museum, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2DD All rights reserved © 2005 Board ofTrustees of the Science Museum, except for contributions from employees of US national museums Designed by Jerry Fowler Printed in England by the Cromwell Press ISBN 1 90074760 X ISSN 1029-3353 Website http://www.nmsi.ac.uk Artefacts series: studies in the history of science and technology In growing numbers, historians are using technological artefacts in the study and interpretation of the recent past. Their work is still largely pioneering, as they investigate approaches and modes of presentation. But the consequences are already richly rewarding. To encourage this enterprise, three of the world's greatest repositories of the material heritage of science and technology: the Deutsches Museum, the Science Museum and the Smithsonian Institution, are collaborating on this book series. Each volume treats a particular subject area, using objects to explore a wide range of issues related to science, technology and medicine and their place in society. Edited by Robert Bud, Science Museum, London Bernard Finn, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC Helmuth Trischler, Deutsches Museum, Munich Volume 1 Manifesting Medicine Principal Editor Robert Bud Volume 2 Exposing Electronics Principal Editor Bernard Finn Volume 3 Tackling Transport Principal Editors Helmuth Trischler and Stefan Zeilinger Volume 4 Presenting Pictures Principal Editor Bernard Finn Volume 5 Materializing the Military Principal Editors Bernard Finn and Barton C Hacker Volume.
  • University Microfilms International 300 N

    University Microfilms International 300 N

    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.Thc sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagc(s}". If it was possible to obtain the missing pagc(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed cither blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame* If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
  • Trianon 1920–2020 Some Aspects of the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1920

    Trianon 1920–2020 Some Aspects of the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1920

    Trianon 1920–2020 Some Aspects of the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1920 TRIANON 1920–2020 SOME ASPECTS OF THE HUNGARIAN PEACE TREATY OF 1920 Edited by Róbert Barta – Róbert Kerepeszki – Krzysztof Kania in co-operation with Ádám Novák Debrecen, 2021 Published by The Debreceni Universitas Nonprofit Közhasznú Kft. and the University of Debrecen, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of History Refereed by Levente Püski Proofs read by Máté Barta Desktop editing, layout and cover design by Zoltán Véber Járom Kulturális Egyesület A könyv megjelenését a Nemzeti Kulturális Alap támomgatta. The publish of the book is supported by The National Cultural Fund of Hungary ISBN 978-963-490-129-9 © University of Debrecen, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of History, 2021 © Debreceni Universitas Nonprofit Közhasznú Kft., 2021 © The Authors, 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy- ing, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. Printed by Printart-Press Kft., Debrecen Managing Director: Balázs Szabó Cover design: A contemporary map of Europe after the Great War CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgements (RÓBERT BARTA) ..................................7 TRIANON AND THE POST WWI INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MANFRED JATZLAUK, Deutschland und der Versailler Friedensvertrag von 1919 .......................................................................................................13
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998

    OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998

    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
  • Application Requête

    Application Requête

    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS filed in the Registry of the Court on 24 April 2014 OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT (MARSHALL ISLANDS v. UNITED KINGDOM) COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour le 24 avril 2014 OBLIGATIONS RELATIVES À DES NÉGOCIATIONS CONCERNANT LA CESSATION DE LA COURSE AUX ARMES NUCLÉAIRES ET LE DÉSARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE (ÎLES MARSHALL c. ROYAUME-UNI) 6 R-ILE_UK_2.indd 1 12/10/15 11:49 2 2014 General List No. 160 I. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND CO-AGENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Majuro, 6 April 2014. I have the honour to submit herewith nine Applications to the Court. In six of these Applications the Marshall Islands is requesting the Respondent State to con- sent to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of this particular case. All of the Applications are delivered to you on Thursday, 24 April 2014, by our Co-Agent, Mr. Phon van den Biesen. Attached to this letter are nine letters in which I make it known to the Court that Mr. van den Biesen has been duly appointed as Co-Agent for each of these cases. Each of the nine Applications is submitted to the Court in two original copies. In addition, 30 paper copies of each Application are provided to the Court as well as one USB device containing digital copies of each Application.
  • George Washington University Undergraduate Review

    George Washington University Undergraduate Review

    KEYWORDS: MLF, Multilateral Force, non-proliferation, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, U.S. Soviet Relations DOI: https://doi.org/10.4079/2578-9201.3(2020).01 "Das Vadanya" to the Multilateral Force: the Soviet Union's Role in the Johnson Administration's Decision to Abandon the MLF ALEXANDER CHANG International Affairs, ESIA '21, [email protected] ABSTRACT The Multilateral Force (MLF) was a proposed nuclear sharing arrangement between the United States and a number of its NATO partners. Proposed in 1958, the MLF was debated until about 1965 or 1966 and was often distinguished by its controversial nature and failure to gain traction. This paper examines documents from the Digital National Security Archive (DNSA), Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of State, and various secondary sources to evaluate the extent to which the Soviet Union contributed to the MLF's failure as an initiative. The Force is often treated as a narrow and highly technical policy debate by existing literature. However, examination of these documents highlighted the necessity of viewing the Force as a topic of distinct political import in American-Soviet nuclear negotiations. While technical disputes over the MLF's constitution was an immediate cause of its demise, U.S. policymakers also faced strategic incentives not to pursue the treaty. In particular, the documents reflect growing belief within the Johnson administration that exiting the agreement could improve broader bilateral relations with the Soviet Union and ensure that the international community could continue to make progress on the creation of a nuclear non-proliferation agreement .
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture

    The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture

    THE END OF NUCLEAR WARFIGHTING MOVING TO A W E I DETERRENCE-ONLY V E R POSTURE E R U T S O P R A E L C U N . S . U E V I T A N September 2018 R E T L A Dr. Bruce G. Blair N Jessica Sleight A Emma Claire Foley In Collaboration with the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response.
  • The Nuclear Question

    The Nuclear Question

    The nuclear question Source: Martins, Véronica. The nuclear question. Translation CVCE. Copyright: (c) CVCE.EU by UNI.LU All rights of reproduction, of public communication, of adaptation, of distribution or of dissemination via Internet, internal network or any other means are strictly reserved in all countries. Consult the legal notice and the terms and conditions of use regarding this site. URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_nuclear_question-en-d3dae17d-f438-475e-b396- 63654c2c350a.html Last updated: 25/10/2016 1/6 The nuclear question The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 began a new era in international relations. For more than four years, the United States imposed itself as the only nuclear power capable of producing and deploying weapons of mass destruction. The Soviet Union exploded its first A-bomb in Kazakhstan on 29 August 1949. The United Kingdom joined the nuclear club on 3 October 1952 after its first nuclear test off the coast of Australia. France, meanwhile, joined the ranks of the nuclear powers on 13 February 1960 after successfully exploding its first atomic bomb in the Algerian Sahara.[1] Against the international background of the developing Cold War, nuclear deterrence became the main organising principle behind the national security policy of the western bloc states and the Soviet Union.[2] It was the United States and the Soviet Union, however, which set the pace for discussions in this area. The United States’ influence was particularly marked in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In the early 1950s, British views on the attitude to be adopted towards Soviet threats were taken up by NATO: NATO’s MC/48 strategy of November 1945, which developed out of the Global Strategy Paper adopted by the United Kingdom in June 1952,[3] advocated a principle of massive retaliation against the Soviet Union.