DOCSLIB.ORG

Debating Nuclear No-First-Use, Again

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debating Nuclear No-First-Use, Again Survival Global Politics and Strategy ISSN: 0039-6338 (Print) 1468-2699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20 Debating Nuclear No-first-use, Again Brad Roberts To cite this article: Brad Roberts (2019) Debating Nuclear No-first-use, Again, Survival, 61:3, 39-56, DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2019.1614788 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1614788 Published online: 21 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 47 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsur20 Debating Nuclear No-first-use, Again Brad Roberts The debate about US nuclear declaratory policy is as old as US nuclear weapons themselves. Presidential promises about when nuclear weapons would be used (positive security assurances) and when they would not (negative security assurances) are widely seen as a critical factor in shaping the political and military environments, as they can directly affect percep- tions of deterrence, assurance and strategic stability by both friends and adversaries. Over the years, many have advocated that the United States adopt a policy of no-first-use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. But no US presi- dent has so far heeded this advice. The NFU debate has resurfaced in the new 116th Congress. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith joined with Senator Elizabeth Warren to offer NFU legislation, with the statement that ‘our current nuclear strategy is not just outdated – it is dangerous’. They went on to argue that NFU would ‘help us maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world’.1 With the political debate about US nuclear policy again heating up, it is a good time to recall prior debates. Understanding how they took shape and why they concluded the way they did can help inform current policy devel- opment. With this policy baseline in mind, it is easier to assess whether and how changed circumstances might dictate changed policies. Brad Roberts is Director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He served as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy from 2009 to 2013. The views reflected here are the author’s personal views and should not be attributed to any institution with which he is or has been affiliated. Survival | vol. 61 no. 3 | June–July 2019 | pp. 39–56 DOI 10.1080/00396338.2019.1614788 40 | Brad Roberts The 2009 Strategic Posture Commission and NFU The last significant congressional discussion of US nuclear declaratory policy occurred late in the George W. Bush administration. It arose in the context of a highly charged debate over nuclear policy driven by an unpop- ular administration seeking new nuclear warheads. Stoking the controversy was the call to substantially revise deterrence practices made by former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former secretary of defense William Perry, and former senator Sam Nunn in their now famous series of Wall Street Journal op-eds.2 Faced with division and confusion on nuclear policy generally, con- gressional leaders established a bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission. Its 2009 report, in turn, underscored the necessity of a bipartisan nuclear strategy given the enduring nature of the nuclear problem. The crux of the matter was that the lifespan of nuclear-modernisation programmes and of arms control (from negotiation through ratification to full implementa- tion) is measured in decades – far longer than a two-year Congress. As the congressional balance of power can be expected to shift periodically, con- tinuity of policy purpose requires some basic bipartisan agreement about the means and ends of policy, and some restraint on the exercise of bold departures that are unlikely to enjoy broad support. Toward this end, the commission recommended a nuclear strategy combining political means to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons with military means of maintain- ing deterrence so long as they remain deployed. Despite its bipartisan cast, the commission was unequivocal and unanimous in rejecting NFU. It did so with the argument that NFU would be harmful to extended deterrence: ‘potential aggressors should have to worry about the possibility that the United States might respond by overwhelming means at a time and in a manner of its choosing’.3 This unanimous position materialised despite the presence on the com- mission of long-time NFU advocate Morton Halperin. Having joined the consensus in 2009, Halperin subsequently set out his own personal views on the subject, arguing that NFU was ‘a good idea whose time has not come’ and ‘can and should be put off for another day’.4 In making this case, he noted that a declaratory policy of NFU would generate political discord that Debating Nuclear No-first-use, Again | 41 would impede efforts to accomplish other steps that would go further in reducing nuclear dangers. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and NFU The Barack Obama administration ended up taking the commission’s advice on both bipartisanship and declaratory policy, but not without significant deliberation. Advocates within and outside the administration made the case for adopting NFU. The insiders saw NFU as beneficial for signalling a move away from Cold War thinking, which the president had promised in his April 2009 speech in Prague. Those outside government generally reinforced this view, while also deriving new arguments from a changing security environment. Scott Sagan, for example, argued that the threat of nuclear first use was no longer necessary to deter non-nuclear attack by other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or by large-scale conventional military forces, and that the benefits of adopting NFU for US non-proliferation objectives had been seriously underestimated.5 While considering its options but before deciding what formulation of declaratory policy to adopt, the Obama administration sought out the views of the broader community of interest. It encountered many differ- ent opinions about the wisdom of NFU from a wide range of stakeholders. Among non-governmental organisations (NGOs), it found both supporters and opponents. Among allies, there were also varied attitudes, sometimes even within the same government. Some allies felt more secure than ever before in 2009 and thus were inclined to support a US NFU policy; others were under new pressure from hostile neighbouring powers, small and large, and felt rising anxiety about both nuclear and non-nuclear threats to their integrity and sovereignty. They also conveyed rising anxiety about the credibility of US security guarantees in light of new nuclear threats to the US homeland from ‘rogue states’ and given new questions about the end of unipolarity and possible US retreat. Although attracted to bold policy initiatives, the Obama administra- tion was also focused on practical steps toward the long-term disarmament goal. The White House characterised these as steps that would increase the safety and security of the United States and its allies, and also of other 42 | Brad Roberts nuclear-armed states, thereby presumably increasing their willingness to take additional steps to reduce the numbers and roles of nuclear weapons. While the president wanted to take significant steps toward the long-term disarmament goal, he did not want to undermine strategic stability, weaken extended deterrence and assurance of allies, or erode the non-proliferation regime. Quite a few bold ideas that were judged to fall short of these criteria were left on the cutting-room floor. NFU ended up there for several reasons.6 Firstly, the administration rejected the claim that there are no plausible cir- cumstances in which the US might be the first to employ nuclear weapons. It saw such circumstances as extremely remote but did not regard them as com- pletely implausible. It conceived a narrow range of contingencies, much narrower than in the Cold War, Calculated in which the vital interests of the United States or its ambiguity served allies might be put at risk by non-nuclear WMD or overwhelming conventional forces. deterrence well Secondly, the administration did not share the confidence of many NFU advocates that US con- ventional forces, though pre-eminent, would be sufficient to deter such threats to the vital interests of US allies. Considerable damage could be done to allies in the time it would take the US to project conventional forces in sufficient scale to prevent a catastrophe for those allies. Thirdly, the administration concluded that the United States and its allies could reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons but not eliminate their role entirely. While building up missile defences and non-nuclear counter- force capabilities would facilitate a reduced role, these measures could not obviate the need for nuclear weapons. This was because the supplemental, non-nuclear tools of deterrence were unlikely to have the same influence as US nuclear threats on the calculus of cost and risk that would crucially inform an enemy’s decision to go to war against a US ally. Fourthly, administration leaders assessed that the tradition of calculated ambiguity had served deterrence well and should not be set aside at a time of continued concern about the effectiveness of deterrence for new challenges. Fraught experience with US red lines in Libya, Syria and Ukraine did nothing to increase their willingness to experiment with red lines in the nuclear realm. Debating Nuclear No-first-use, Again | 43 Fifthly, some in the administration judged that the views of worried allies needed to be prioritised over those of more secure allies. This was a moral choice. But it also reflected a desire to ensure that decisions about NATO’s nuclear policy and posture be made by the allies collectively rather than individually and separately. Had such unilateral decisions become the norm, it is likely that NATO’s collective nuclear deterrent would have col- lapsed, stranding those more worried allies without a nuclear umbrella and generating among them resentment about the disengagement of NATO’s long-standing members from their defence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dangers of a No First Use Policy
    Dangers of a Nuclear No First Use Policy Longstanding U.S. Declaratory Policy In the many decades that U.S. nuclear forces have “The U.S. should retain calculated ambiguity as an deterred adversaries and assured allies and element of its nuclear declaratory policy...calculated partners, the U.S. has never adopted a policy ambiguity creates uncertainty in the mind of a potential declaring it would not use nuclear weapons first in aggressor about just how the U.S. might respond to an a conflict. Today, the U.S. continues its act of aggression, and this ought to reinforce restraint longstanding policy of retaining some degree of and caution on the part of that potential aggressor… ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances that [The U.S.] should not abandon calculated ambiguity by might lead to a U.S. nuclear response. adopting a policy of no first use.” – Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of Within the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) process, the United States, 2009 every recent U.S. administration has examined whether and how U.S. nuclear declaratory policy should change. The 2018 NPR is consistent with NPRs conducted by previous administrations in rejecting a no first use policy and notes that “the United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners.” Given the significant deterioration in the international security and nuclear threat environment since the previous 2010 NPR, a no first use policy remains unjustified. No First Use Could Invite Attack or Coercion Advocates argue that a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • US Military Options Should Not Include Starting a Nuclear War: the Security Benefits of a No-First-Use Nuclear Policy
    US Military Options Should Not Include Starting a Nuclear War: The Security Benefits of a No-First-Use Nuclear Policy By Lisbeth Gronlund, Union of Concerned Scientists The United States maintains nuclear weapons to deter and, if necessary, respond to the use of nuclear weapons by other countries against the United States, its troops, or its allies. However, it has always reserved the right to use nuclear weapons first in response to non-nuclear attacks on its territory, its troops, or its allies. During the Cold War, the United States deployed as many as 7,000 “tactical” (low-yield and short-range) nuclear weapons in Europe to be able to counter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe using conventional forces. It also considered the first use of nuclear weapons against countries that did not have nuclear weapons during the Korean and Vietnam wars and, in 1955 and 1958, during two crises in the Taiwan Strait. (China tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964.) Constraining First-Use Options During negotiation of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to prevent more countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, it became clear that non-nuclear countries might be reluctant to join the treaty if they were faced with the prospect of being attacked with nuclear weapons. Instead, they might want to retain the option of acquiring their own nuclear weapons to deter such attacks. In response, the five nuclear-armed countries indicated their general opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. Beginning with President Jimmy Carter in 1978, the United States has provided a “negative security assurance”—a declaration that it would consider using nuclear weapons first only under certain, specified circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • US Nuclear Weapons
    U.S. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POLICY Today's Strategic Environment: Increasingly Complex and Dangerous For decades, the United States led the world in efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons. Successive treaties enabled reductions in accountable strategic U.S. nuclear warheads, first to 6,000, and ultimately to 1,550. Thousands of shorter-range nuclear weapons not covered by any treaty were almost entirely eliminated from the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Overall, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile has drawn down by more than 85 percent from its Cold War high. Many hoped conditions had been set for even deeper reductions in global nuclear arsenals. Unfortunately, the United States and our allies now face a security environment with increased complexity and worsening strategic threats. Today’s central challenge to our security is the reemergence of long-term strategic competition with Russia and China. While the United States has focused on maintaining its existing nuclear systems, Russia and China have increased the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and have been actively increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces. Further, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities threaten our allies and homeland and add to an already complex strategic picture. Russia has been developing, testing, and fielding new systems for its nuclear triad over the past decade. This includes new road-mobile and silo-based ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines and missiles, bomber aircraft, and cruise missiles. Russia is also actively testing never-before-seen nuclear weapon capabilities, such as hypersonic glide vehicles, nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Furthering 'No First Use' in India-Pakistan Context Ali Ahmed*
    Commentary Furthering 'No First Use' in India-Pakistan Context Ali Ahmed* Pakistan has not subscribed to No First Use. That it could do so has been expressed informally by its President Zardari. India could take up the issue with Pakistan at a forum discussing Confidence Building Measures as and when the composite dialogue resumes. The Lahore Memorandum of Understanding posits such consultations. To get Pakistan on board, India may require initiating a strategic dialogue with Pakistan, outside of the existing composite dialogue framework. This would build trust that could impact other areas of the peace process positively. A resumption of the peace process with Pakistan, 'paused' after Mumbai 26/11, is likely. A revival of the peace process would resurrect the talks mechanism on Confidence Building Measures as mandated by the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the two foreign secretaries at Lahore on February 21, 1999.1 So far these talks have made progress on aspects such as hotlines between the foreign secretaries and a draft agreement on nuclear risk reduction. The proposal here is for expanding the ambit of these talks to include No First Use (NFU). The possibility was brought to fore recently by Pakistan's President Zardari indicating Pakistan's seeming amenability to it in his interface with Indian intelligentsia at a video conference in late 2008.2 This commentary recommends taking up the issue, albeit raised as an 'out of the box' thought of its President with Pakistan through a dialogue posited by the very first point in the Lahore MoU: 'The two sides shall engage in bilateral consultations on security concepts, and nuclear doctrines, with a view to developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflict.' Expert-level talks on nuclear and missiles related CBMs, begun in June 2004 as part of the Composite Dialogue process, have been held.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Options for the Nuclear Posture Review
    Best Options for the Nuclear Posture Review Anna Péczeli Abstract The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) represented a significant departure from previous reviews. It explicitly included the goal of “global zero,” added nuclear security to the scope of the review, declared a negative security assurance with fewer excep- tions than any previous administration, and reduced the role of nuclear weapons to a narrow range of contingencies. It is essential for the Trump administration to follow its predecessor and live up to US obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by recommitting to global zero as a long-term goal. At the moment, concerns of allies are still over- riding the chances of a posture that would further limit the role of nuclear weapons by implementing a “sole purpose” posture or a “no-first-use” declaration. But these policies should remain long-term goals, and the administration should continue to work to create the conditions for im- plementation. This includes improving regional security architectures and increasing reliance on conventional capabilities. Strategic stability should remain the organizing concept toward Russia and China, and negative security assurances should be maintained to advance non- proliferation objectives. Altogether, continuity in declaratory policy is still in the best interests of the United States as it would strengthen rela- tions with allies, mitigate the fears of Russia and China, and pave the way toward a more cooperative relationship based on dialogue instead of threats. ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ Since the Obama administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the security environment has significantly deteriorated. The 2010 NPR stated, “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, Anna Péczeli, PhD, is a recent Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies, National University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Nuclear Policies for a Safer World
    NTI Paper JUNE 2021 U.S. Nuclear Policies for a Safer World SUMMARY NTI Co-Chairs Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn call on the United States to resume a position of global leadership to reduce the risks posed by nuclear weapons. Their recommendations—which are further elaborated and reinforced in seven related policy papers by NTI experts and former officials—include proposals for changes to U.S. nuclear policy and posture, reengagement with Russia on a range of strategic stability and arms control issues, sustained dialogue and nuclear risk reduction measures with China, and recommitment to multilateral efforts to strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. Introduction by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn Papers by Steve Andreasen, James McKeon, Mark Melamed, and Lynn Rusten Contents Strengthening the Foundation for Nuclear Stability .....................................1 Reducing the Risk of Nuclear Use by Increasing Leadership Decision Time ................4 Declaratory Policy: Advancing Sole Purpose ...........................................7 Next Steps on Strategic Stability and Arms Control With Russia ........................ 13 Reducing U.S. and Russian Non-Strategic and Forward-Deployed Nuclear Weapons ...... 22 The Offense-Defense Relationship .................................................. 29 Engaging China to Reduce Nuclear Risks ............................................ 35 Multilateral Steps to Reduce Nuclear Risks .......................................... 47 About the Authors ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NATO's Positions Regarding Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Arms Control And
    NATO Topics: NATO's Positions Regarding Nuclear Non-Proliferation... http://www.nato.int/issues/nuclear/position.html Eng. / Fr. This paper states key positions of the North Atlantic Alliance and of Allies with regard to Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament. It includes related multilateral and bilateral activities. It complements the Basic Fact Sheet on “NATO’s Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment” (updated in June 2004) which addresses primarily the far-reaching steps of adaptation of NATO’s nuclear policy and force posture to the new security environment. Regarding themes of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and related issues, both fact sheets should be seen in conjunction, particularly with respect to the 2005 NPT Review Conference and the preceding Preparatory Committee session in 2004. Arms Control (General) NATO Allies have maintained a long-standing commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation as an integral part of their security policy, firmly embedded in the broader political context in which Allies seek to enhance stability and security by lowering arms levels and increasing military transparency and mutual confidence. Allies have repeatedly reaffirmed that arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation will continue to play an important role in the achievement of NATO's security objectives. At the November 2002 Summit meeting in Prague, NATO Heads of State and Government reaffirmed that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation make an essential contribution to preventing the spread and use of WMD and their means of delivery. They stressed the importance of abiding by and strengthening existing multilateral non-proliferation and export control regimes and international arms control and disarmament accords.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Rise After Pokhran II
    INDIA’S RISE AFTER POKHRAN II Chinese Analyses and Assessments Jing-dong Yuan The South Asian nuclear tests of May 1998 represented a major setback for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts. New Delhi and Islamabad have so far resisted international calls for nuclear restraint and have declined to sign unconditionally the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT). Both India and Paki- stan are in the process of formulating their respective nuclear doctrines and determining the structure of their nuclear forces; at the same time, the two countries are also moving apace with their ballistic missile programs through a series of test launches. The current standoff along the India-Pakistan line of control (LOC) risks potential escalation to open military conflict. These de- velopments have serious implications for South Asian security. The May 1998 nuclear tests and the changing South Asian security dy- namic significantly affect China’s assessments of its own security environ- ment in the face of an emerging and nuclear India, its South Asia policy in general and the relationship with Pakistan in particular, and its relations with India in the coming years. This article reviews and discusses Chinese re- sponses to the Indian nuclear tests and seeks to address three sets of issues. First, the consequences of India’s nuclear tests for international arms control and nonproliferation, South Asian security, and Sino-Indian relations will be considered. Second, India’s rise as a major power and the challenges this Jing-dong Yuan is Senior Research Associate, Center for Nonprolifer- ation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense, and the Dangers of a New Arms Race
    Western States Legal Foundation Special Report April 2002 The Shape of Things to Come: The Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense, and the Dangers of a New Arms Race In the fall of 2001, discussions between weapons. Russia and the United States on nuclear weapons reductions and ballistic missile defense raised The NPR gives the “old” strategic triad, hopes that after more than half a century of consisting of submarine-based ballistic missiles, nuclear confrontation, we might finally move land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and away from the brink. The Bush administration strategic bombers, a new name – “[o]ffensive has tried to convince the American people that strike forces” – and locates it within a “new” this is this case, selling its ambitious ballistic strategic triad. The new triad also includes missile defense scheme as a way to escape the “[d]efenses,” and a “revitalized defense Cold War deadlock of mutual assured destruction. infrastructure.” These three elements are bound The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review together by “enhanced command and control” (NPR), however, revealed that the United States and “intelligence systems.”1 intends to keep thousands of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. While unilateral cuts in Taken together, this “New Triad” would deployed U.S. strategic arms are anticipated over entail a massive, broad high-tech weapons build- the next 10 years, the ability to rapidly up by the United States. Such a program is likely reconstitute the arsenal size is emphasized. The to erode what remains of the fragile and limited capability to modify existing nuclear weapons or arms control accomplishments of the last three develop new weapon types will be retained, along decades.
    [Show full text]
  • A No-First-Use Policy Stewart Prager, 1 December 2020
    A No-First-Use Policy Stewart Prager, 1 December 2020 Proposition: The US will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. That is, the US will not start a nuclear war. The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. Background A no-first-use (NFU) policy commits a nation to use nuclear arms in conflict only in retaliation for a nuclear attack. The nation will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in conflict. This is equivalent to the “sole purpose” doctrine which states that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. Currently only China has an unconditional NFU policy. The credibility ​ of this policy is aided by the by the de-alerted status of its arsenal. Reportedly, China’s nuclear warheads or de-mated from its launchers. Thus, a launch would require some time to execute, reducing the likelihood of a surprise first strike. India has a NFU policy, but with exceptions for ​ a biological or chemical attack. Russia and China have a bilateral agreement not to use nuclear weapons first against each other. The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states that “the United ​ States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners.” The US allows for FU under extreme circumstances. Consistent with this policy, the US maintains about 850 warheads ​ on alert status, ready to launch in minutes. However, the US has a policy not to use nuclear ​ weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state that is in compliance with the NPT.
    [Show full text]
  • No First Use of Nuclear Weapons"
    Pugwash Meeting no. 279 "No First Use of Nuclear Weapons" London, UK, 15-17 November 2002 PAPERS No First Use in the India-Pakistan Context Kanti Bajpai The idea of no first use (NFU) in South Asia is primarily associated with India. Before and after the tests of 1998, Indians have advocated no first use. Pakistanis, by contrast, have been much more skeptical of or hostile to an NFU undertaking. India has nevertheless persisted in propagating the idea of an NFU as a stabilizing measure for South Asia as well as globally for all the nuclear powers. The paper first of all looks at official and non-official statements on no first use and first use. It then goes on to look at how Indians and Pakistanis assess or might assess each other’s stands on NFU/first use. It shows that India continues to support NFU and that Pakistan continues to emphasize first use of nuclear weapons. India’s reasoning is based on a mix of diplomatic, economic, strategic, and political considerations. Pakistan’s reasoning is based primarily on military-strategic considerations. As things stand, India has officially supported an NFU, regional and global. Pakistan by contrast remains reticent and appears to favour a first use rather than a no first use posture. India will, for the foreseeable future, stick to its NFU commitment even if Pakistan does not make a matching offer. Indian Views on No First Use/First Use While India has refused to define minimum deterrence in terms of numbers and types of nuclear weapons, it has underlined its interest in nuclear restraint.
    [Show full text]
  • No First Use and Credible Deterrence
    Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament ISSN: (Print) 2575-1654 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpnd20 No First Use and Credible Deterrence Steve Fetter & Jon Wolfsthal To cite this article: Steve Fetter & Jon Wolfsthal (2018): No First Use and Credible Deterrence, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, DOI: 10.1080/25751654.2018.1454257 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2018.1454257 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Nagasaki University. Accepted author version posted online: 29 Mar 2018. Published online: 09 Apr 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 9 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpnd20 JOURNAL FOR PEACE AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2018.1454257 No First Use and Credible Deterrence Steve Fettera and Jon Wolfsthalb aSchool of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA; bKennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Despite progress in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in Received 19 December 2017 the largest arsenals, a number of states are now looking to Accepted 16 March 2018 increase their reliance on nuclear weapons not only for deterrence, KEYWORDS but also for coercion or war fighting. There is scant evidence that Nuclear weapons; nuclear nuclear weapons are effective or well suited for these roles, and strategy; nuclear doctrine; the risks of relying on nuclear weapons for more than deterrence disarmament; arms control of nuclear attack are under appreciated.
    [Show full text]