DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Forces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Forces Chapter 3 Nuclear Forces An Overview of Nuclear Weapons Modernization ine nations today possess more than 20,000 nuclear weapons,33 with a combined destructive force equivalent to 150,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.34 Despite being Nlegally obliged to disarm, all are pursuing programmes to modernize or build up their nuclear forces – with financial institutions providing the funds to make it happen. This chapter gives an overview of each country’s BOX 9 nuclear weapons programme, with an emphasis on the modernization projects that are under way and the Fact Box: The Nuclear-Armed Nations cost of such projects. The purpose is to highlight the NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS magnitude of the problem of modernization – and n Russia 11,000 the potential to tackle it through divestment. n United States 8,500 These massive investments in the world’s nuclear n France 300 n China 240 forces underscore the importance of building a global n United Kingdom 225 grassroots movement, supported by the financial n Pakistan 90–100 n India 80–100 sector, with the aim of strengthening the global norm n Israel 80 against nuclear weapons, preventing further nuclear n North Korea <10 arms racing and creating the conditions for a universal Total 20,530 ban on the use and possession of nuclear weapons. Source: SIPRI 2011 NUCLEAR WEAPONS SPENDING 2011 The Nuclear Weapons Industry n United States US$61.3b In some of the nuclear-armed states – especially the n Russia US$14.8b United States, the United Kingdom and France – n China US$7.6b n France US$6.0b governments award contracts to corporations to carry n United Kingdom US$5.5b out work on their nuclear arsenals. The corporations n India US$4.9b n Pakistan US$2.2b are responsible for designing new warheads, extending n Israel US$1.9b the lifetime of old ones, and building new nuclear n North Korea US$0.7b missiles, heavy bombers and submarines. Total US$104.9b Chapter 4 profiles 20 companies that are heavily Source: Global Zero 2011 involved in the nuclear weapons industries of these three countries, as well as India. Most are listed on stock exchanges, making them effective targets of divestment campaigns. Even privately owned companies – such as Bechtel in the United States, which manages the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratories – can be challenged by persuading banks to deny them loans. 31 DON’T BANK ON THE BOMB In other nuclear-armed countries – such as The total global nuclear weapons spending in Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea – the 2011 of US$104.9 billion was more than the gross modernization of nuclear forces is carried out domestic product of Bangladesh (US$101 billion), primarily or exclusively by government agencies. a nation of 158.6 million people.42 One year’s Options for divestment are therefore rather limited. nuclear weapons spending is equal to 42 years of the A potentially more effective way to challenge their regular UN budget of US$2.5 billion, or 14 years nuclear industries is to influence budgetary decision- of UN peacekeeping missions.43 The UN Office for making processes in national legislatures. Disarmament Affairs, which is the principal UN body responsible for advancing nuclear disarmament, has Nuclear Weapons Spending an annual operating budget of approximately US$10 The nine nuclear-armed nations are estimated to million44 – less than what the nuclear-armed nations spend a combined total of more than US$100 billion spend on their nuclear arsenals every hour. Nuclear annually on their nuclear forces,35 diverting vast weapons expenditure is more than 10,000 times public resources from health care, education, climate greater than the UN disarmament budget. change mitigation, disaster relief and other services. The group Global Zero predicts that spending will Public Opinion exceed US$1 trillion over the next decade, with the Opinion polls in all nuclear-armed nations (except cost “likely [to] go significantly higher as numerous for North Korea, where public polling is not readily modernization programs underway are ramped up”.36 available) show that a majority of people agree that a treaty should be negotiated to outlaw and eliminate all THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS nuclear weapons.45 Opposition to the modernization Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons could be of nuclear forces has increased following major cuts freed up and put to more effective use. In 2002 the in some countries to government programmes due to World Bank estimated that an annual investment of the global financial crisis. just US$40 to $60 billion – roughly half the amount currently spent on nuclear weapons – would be SUPPORT FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN enough to meet the Millennium Development Goals 77% UNITED STATES by the target date of 2015.37 These goals include 69% RUSSIA eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving 81% UNITED KINGDOM universal primary education, promoting general 86% FRANCE equality and women’s empowerment, reducing child 83% CHINA mortality, improving maternal health, combating 67% ISRAEL HIV/AIDS and ensuring environmental sustainability. 62% INDIA 46% PAKISTAN COMPARING THE COSTS Source: World Public Opinion 2008 In 2010 official development assistance – the aid money given by industrialized nations to developing nations – totalled US$128.7 billion.38 Current nuclear Warhead Dismantlement weapons spending is equal to 80 per cent of this sum. Although spending on nuclear weapons appears to The US aid contribution in 2010 was the largest in be increasing in most of the nuclear-armed nations, absolute terms at US$30.2 billion39 – about half the the total inventory of nuclear warheads globally is amount it spent on its nuclear arsenal that year. decreasing – due mainly to dismantlement of old Official development assistance to Africa, the warheads in the United States and Russia.46 poorest continent on earth, was a paltry US$29.3 40 billion in 2010, or less than one-third the sum spent NO. NUCLEAR WARHEADS YEAR on nuclear weapons. As millions across the globe go 26,000 2007 hungry and are denied access to clean water, basic 25,000 2008 medicines and sanitation, the nuclear-armed nations 23,300 2009 spend US$287 million every day – or US$12 million 22,600 2010 an hour – on their nuclear forces.41 20,530 2011 32 NUCLEAR FORCES BOX 10 Ask an Expert: How Can We Challenge Modernization? A web of corporate players are Protesters challenge construction of involved in nuclear weapons a nuclear weapons facility in Kansas modernization. Ray Acheson, the City, the United States, in 2010. New York–based director of Reaching Critical Will – a programme of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom – explains the situation, and why we need to challenge the new nuclear arms race. ICAN: Most people favour nuclear abolition, but some have a vested interest in these weapons. Who? Ray Acheston (RA): The people who profit from the nuclear weapons industry include the owners and managers of the corporations and the laboratories that produce nuclear weapons and delivery systems, as well as their paid lobbyists. Photo: Joshua McElwee, National Catholic Reporter (US) ICAN: The military–industrial complex is a powerful force. Can individuals have any impact through much less clear how genuine they are. extends the lifetime of weapons and/or divestment campaigns? Their security policies that maintain adds new military capabilities to them. nuclear weapons as either strategic or Even while some nuclear-weapon RA: Yes, divestment can have an defensive tools, as well as their plans states have agreed to “reduce” their impact. We have recently seen for modernization of their arsenals and nuclear arsenals, their modernization the success of divestment from related infrastructure, indicate that means that they need fewer weapons cluster munitions production, for they are in reality paying lip service to to wield the same threat. example. The companies that design, the goal of nuclear disarmament. By investing billions of dollars in manufacture and modernize nuclear They are certainly against the nuclear weapons, delivery systems weapons have much to lose from further proliferation of nuclear and the infrastructure to create them, divestment initiatives. weapons, but most of them have governments are investing in a future Once sub-contractors are factored said that they will keep their own where arsenals of weapons of mass in, the number of beneficiaries is nuclear weapons until all other nuclear destruction continue to be construed immense. However, they often also weapons are eliminated. This is quite a as providers of security rather than as receive contracts directly from their catch-22 for disarmament. direct impediments to security. government, which means it will be important to highlight the role not ICAN: You said that nuclear ICAN: Are any governments just of pension plans and institutional weapons cost billions of dollars. investing in disarmament? investors in these companies, but also Where exactly is the money going? the role that the US Congress and RA: Some governments invest in other legislatures play in funnelling RA: Most of the money goes to the disarmament by supporting non- funds to these weapons contractors. laboratories and factories where governmental work in this area. the nuclear weapons and delivery Others invest time and resources in ICAN: There’s a lot of talk about systems are manufactured, assembled their diplomats to work on concrete achieving a nuclear-weapon-free and so on, and to the firms that initiatives for promoting disarmament. world. Are governments genuine? manage these laboratories. Some The United Nations is vastly under- money is also spent on building or resourced in this area. Its Weapons RA: Most government officials replacing the facilities used to create of Mass Destruction branch, which probably are genuine in their desire these weapons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report: the New Nuclear Arms Race
    The New Nuclear Arms Race The Outlook for Avoiding Catastrophe August 2020 By Akshai Vikram Akshai Vikram is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at Ploughshares Fund, where he focuses on U.S. nuclear policy. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Akshai previously worked as an opposition researcher for the Democratic National Committee and a campaign staffer for the Kentucky Democratic Party. He has written on U.S. nuclear policy and U.S.-Iran relations for outlets such as Inkstick Media, The National Interest, Defense One, and the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft. Akshai holds an M.A. in International Economics and American Foreign Policy from the Johns Hopkins University SAIS as well as a B.A. in International Studies and Political Science from Johns Hopkins Baltimore. On a good day, he speaks Spanish, French, and Persian proficiently. Acknowledgements This report was made possible by the strong support I received from the entire Ploughshares Fund network throughout my fellowship. Ploughshares Fund alumni Will Saetren, Geoff Wilson, and Catherine Killough were extremely kind in offering early advice on the report. From the Washington, D.C. office, Mary Kaszynski and Zack Brown offered many helpful edits and suggestions, while Joe Cirincione, Michelle Dover, and John Carl Baker provided much- needed encouragement and support throughout the process. From the San Francisco office, Will Lowry, Derek Zender, and Delfin Vigil were The New Nuclear Arms Race instrumental in finalizing this report. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their help. I would especially like to thank Tom Collina. Tom reviewed numerous drafts of this report, never The Outlook for Avoiding running out of patience or constructive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secret History of Australia's Nuclear Ambitions
    Jim Walsh SURPRISE DOWN UNDER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF AUSTRALIAS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS by Jim Walsh Jim Walsh is a visiting scholar at the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He is also a Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science program at MIT, where he is completing a dissertation analyzing comparative nuclear decisionmaking in Australia, the Middle East, and Europe. ustralia is widely considered tactical nuclear weapons. In 1961, of state behavior and the kinds of Ato be a world leader in ef- Australia proposed a secret agree- policies that are most likely to retard forts to halt and reverse the ment for the transfer of British the spread of nuclear weapons? 1 spread of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons, and, throughout This article attempts to answer Australian government created the the 1960s, Australia took actions in- some of these questions by examin- Canberra Commission, which called tended to keep its nuclear options ing two phases in Australian nuclear for the progressive abolition of open. It was not until 1973, when history: 1) the attempted procure- nuclear weapons. It led the fight at Australia ratified the NPT, that the ment phase (1956-1963); and 2) the the U.N. General Assembly to save country finally renounced the acqui- indigenous capability phase (1964- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty sition of nuclear weapons. 1972). The historical reconstruction (CTBT), and the year before, played Over the course of four decades, of these events is made possible, in a major role in efforts to extend the Australia has gone from a country part, by newly released materials Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of that once sought nuclear weapons to from the Australian National Archive Nuclear Weapons (NPT) indefi- one that now supports their abolition.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailored Deterrence - a French Perspective
    50 TAILORED DETERRENCE - A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE Bruno TERTRAIS France is not at the forefront of the debate within NATO on the future of deterrence and retains a fairly conservative nuclear policy. However, the evolution of the French nuclear deterrent has been largely in tune with US and UK policies. Nuclear Deterrence With Smaller Arsenals Nuclear weapons will remain the ultimate guarantee of a nation’s survival for the foreseeable future. There is no alternative means of defense on the horizon which may threaten in a credible way the complete destruction of a State as a coherent entity, in just a few minutes. Conventional weapons could conveivably do the job, but only through repeated and multiple raids and with a lesser guarantee of success. Moreover, conventional weapons cannot instill in the adversary’s mind the very peculiar fear induced by nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are arguably as scary as nuclear ones - and perhaps even more so, in particu- lar for public opinion. But their use can be controlled only with difficulty. More importantly, they are not able to physically destroy government buildings, factories, command posts and arsenals. Unless perhaps deployed in space in very large numbers, strategic defenses will not be effective against a large number of missiles equipped with decoys and multiple warheads. Finally, threatening some particular hardened targets will continue to be possible only by nuclear means. But future deterrence will be ensured with smaller nuclear arse- nals. In the coming twenty years, Western nuclear stockpiles will continue *Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, France. 51 to be reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Warheads
    OObservatoire des armes nucléaires françaises The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons looks forward to the elimination of nuclear weapons in conformity with the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To that end, the Observatory disseminates follow-ups of information in the forms of pamphlets and entries on the World Wide Web: • on the evolution of French nuclear forces; • on the on-going dismantling of nuclear sites, weapons, production facilities, and research; • on waste management and environmental rehabilitation of sites; • on French policy regarding non-proliferation; • on international cooperation (NGO’s, international organizations, nations), toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; • on the evolution of the other nuclear powers’ arsenals. The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons was created at the beginning of the year 2000 within the Center for Documentation and Research on Peace and Conflicts (CDRPC). It has received support from the W. Alton Jones Foundation and the Ploughshares Fund. C/o CDRPC, 187 montée de Choulans, F-69005 Lyon Tél. 04 78 36 93 03 • Fax 04 78 36 36 83 • e-mail : [email protected] Site Internet : www.obsarm.org Dépôt légal : mai 2001 - 1ère édition • édition anglaise : novembre 2001 ISBN 2-913374-12-3 © CDRPC/Observatoire des armes nucléaires françaises 187, montée de Choulans, 69005 Lyon (France) Table of contents The break-down of nuclear disarmament ....................................................................................................................................... 5 The
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Nuclear Weapons Capability
    Israeli nuclear weapons capability 【Overview】 Israel, along with India and Pakistan, continues to possess nuclear weapons outside the NPT regime. Production of its nuclear arsenal likely began in the 1960s, Israel maintains its ‘ambiguity policy’, neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons. Only limited information is available about Israel's nuclear capability but it is believed to possess two types of ground-launched ballistic missiles and airborne bombs. Also, Israeli submarines operating in the high seas (see footnote 2) may carry cruise missiles. Here, we estimate such SLCMs to number 10, thereby pegging Israel's arsenal at 90 warheads as of April 2020. It is thought that Israel, as India and Pakistan do, separately maintain their nuclear warheads and ground-launched missiles. As of late 2014, Israel has around 300 kg of high enriched uranium (HEU) and approximately 900 kg of weapons- grade plutonium (International Panel on Fissile Material 2018). To manufacture a nuclear bomb, depending on technical levels and other factors, it requires 12-18kg of HEU or 4-6kg of plutonium. Accordingly, Israel possesses nuclear fissile material equivalent to 167-250 warheads. With higher levels of technical sophistication, however, it is possible to obtain a bomb from 2-4kg plutonium, in which case the same Israeli stockpile would suggest an arsenal of 225-450 warheads (Union of Concerned Scientists 2009). Kristensen and Norris suggest that Israel has not converted all its fissile material into nuclear warheads, and estimate the number of warheads in conjunction with the intelligence on their nuclear weapons delivery capabilities (Kristensen, Hans M.
    [Show full text]
  • “Near-Peer Advancements in Space and Nuclear Weapons”
    Prepared statement by: Tim Morrison Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces February 23, 2021 “Near-Peer Advancements in Space and Nuclear Weapons” Chairman Cooper, Ranking Member Turner, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today and for holding a public hearing on this most important topic. I’m pleased to be part of such a distinguished panel. There is little more important to our national security, indeed, our nation’s existence, than the threat posed by foreign nuclear weapons development. There is an arms race underway; today, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines. We have long known about Russia’s reliance on its nuclear forces. Russia is a failing state. A declining power. To paraphrase former Senator John McCain, “Russia is a mafia-run gas station with nuclear weapons.” Its nuclear forces are just another example of Putin’s need to cheaply create relevance for a formerly great power he is steering into the ground at an increasing rate of speed. More recently, the activities of the Chinese Communist Party, including with respect to its nuclear forces, have become increasingly alarming to the U.S. national security apparatus. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) had been growing its nuclear forces behind what the then-Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control, Ambassador Marshall Billingslea, called the “Great Wall of Secrecy.”i The prior administration, in which I served, made a concerted effort to reveal what it knew about the Chinese Communist Party’s plans to better inform Congress, the American people, and America’s allies.
    [Show full text]
  • Vito Marcantonio Part 3 of 25
    1;:__%_43_.v__V?L_1___5__&#39;q,_M92J__"gmi__4__"____!_*_!_EI,_~A___:_____"I?__y___:_92____1_ f,_¢V_I1L W ___Vk§__92?_H3_?_H__ld__ _v&#39;_ 3 v __ vA_LV LQ:__ I___W!_3qr_Jf LA?__V!V___x&M,,_____ TIAF H J__7]_4,_Mr_J.hA_v" I1_a__"$__________J&#39;1f _im&#39;___F;V.JV__2:__&#39;kME CF ___f_R3_y_92_hr_v_92_N_;,___m__wmiA;kr__&#39;_I-K____,___!292__I__V, _ _MT 92 WJ_G/_&#39;__4___92_r*2 __W:_______i A___§&#39;___:_#F; JJM_Ak_yS1w::__!_,__u __lg!$_i__!m;_______v,QgN H _ ___>___PM_{J_Vk_Jq_~_Uvv_H,R__.&#39;:&#39;__|1hrv V1HR ,5.&#39;!*92H.I]r92 _&#39;W _ _L_*kMT:_!_an_______v._&#39;in__xyr t~ _ _ if1|__~__;___!___?__>_4_H_._ __hr_wHNUy?_ivh;_H_m_ M 7 ¢_W :K___&_____l21_/R >3_"___;%_h__n___&#39;_v__V»v_tr___&#39;V J ___i______>MtL_,Jx _{IL____:__r__!_ K_ ____V&#39;__y___rE&#39;"__ J; WC,___}wr~ __H: _ WWzfi~_F¬_;_Y_v____A1___&#39;_5V"lmy_____,q_lV___W_&#39;_Y___KMF__%""__H_v____92__>__,_____ W _ __F_WW4*_WE 1_____w_M___W__?__L|5; _ LJP?r___M_M_Evvi$m?v_wn?_§¥Ma 7{whm___iA_R_I 1: H/~@_YaTh___H_"I_{n_7F_____n92_1,___._*!Hb_iIa_m%y_,"_w__&#39;__#_¢_,_.92_L__L__;__1II A92IK{IVS Il!_i&#39;|___&h__ _ av*__W!_P__!___,_r_&ux_,___J_iKn______:&#39;__"H,H_£_r_&#39;_____ _92C}_ 4 hNh!_§¬p}Ex_A_N%g.:5%}! y ,,___A:3__L,r_"_ . V i_A__.7M_wv_:_1&#39;__N_HIifmmi_gM.§_&#39;__;__gin!r_%__W_"_qhhw_WW_H___mj__H ~WbiA_ W__H__Ik__A_aAm%fmrx$5m_w&#39;_H!|LN&_UArm_w?Wm_92__u_w!___T IW iifH>_H__x____#M_Mq 1 __K61_ i Ihi_My___&#39;ivé éN_%_M_J_~__,__,___r_4{__FJ-R5___if__f_92__,_4&#39;1._____4_S92___TI_v_V_6Mn?ty+iihi$3Em%%E¥av%%*£3x!_Jw_§;92_;W§i_¢&#39;__r}__h__M1i_£3q;A¢jHhM__H_nuNM4mv__f%1%?W/pg92_&#39;7.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction
    Nuclear futures: Western European options for nuclear risk reduction Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer & Stephen Young British American Security Information Council and the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), December 1998 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Chapter One: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Policy in Western Europe Chapter Two: The United Kingdom Chapter Three: France Chapter Four: Nuclear Co-operation Chapter Five: NATO Europe Chapter Six: Nuclear Risk Reduction in Western Europe Endnotes About the authors Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non-governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASIC’s Washington office. Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC. Previously, he worked for 20/20 Vision and for ACCESS: A Security Information Service. He has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a BA from Carleton College. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many people who pro-vided help of various kinds during the writing of this report. They include: Nicola Butler, for her inestimable assistance; Ambassador James Leonard, for his helpful comments on the report’s recommendations; Professors Paul Rogers and Patricia Chilton, for their comments on early drafts; Daniel Plesch, for his comments on the entire report; and Camille Grand, for his guidance and support in compiling the section on France. Special thanks to Lucy Amis and Tanya Padberg for excellent proofing and copy-editing work, and to Christine Kucia and Kate Joseph for advice and assistance on the layout and design of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States
    Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States Ian Kearns Discussion Paper 1 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy Published by British American Security Information Council (BASIC) November 2011 BASIC in London BASIC in Washington The Grayston Centre 110 Maryland Avenue NE 28 Charles Square Suite 205 London N1 6HT Washington DC 20002 Tel: +44 (0) 207 324 4680 Tel: +1 (0) 202 546 8055 Acknowledgements Author BASIC and the BASIC Trident Commission are grateful to Dr Ian Kearns is the Chief Executive of the European the Ploughshares Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Leadership Network (ELN), a member of the BASIC Trident the Polden Puckham Charitable Trust and the Nuclear Commission, and works as a consultant to the Commission Information Trust for their financial support of the work of and to RUSI on nuclear issues. Previously Ian was Acting the Commission. We would also like to thank all those who Director and Deputy Director of the Institute for Public have contributed to the work of the Commission by Policy Research (IPPR) in the United Kingdom and Deputy submitting evidence and otherwise engaging in our activities. Chair of the IPPR’s independent All-Party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, serving under co-chairs, BASIC would also like to thank the BASIC Trident Lord George Robertson and Lord Paddy Ashdown. He also Commissioners for their unpaid involvement in this enterprise. served in 2010 as a Specialist Adviser to the Joint House of Commons/House of Lords Committee on National Security.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons in Europe: British and French Deterrence Forces in a European Context Has Come to the Fore in Recent Years
    Questions about the meaning, role and utility of nuclear deterrence forces deterrence and French British in Europe: weapons Nuclear in a European context has come to the fore in recent years. Russia has reemphasized the role of a full-spectrum nuclear arsenal. This includes increased reliance on substrategic nuclear weapons for battlefield use, to compensate for its perceived inferiority in conventional armaments. In Europe, the main multilateral and intergovernmental institutions and cooperation have been put under strain as a result of several negative developments. As a consequence the UK and France, Europe’s two nuclear powers, are debating the role and composition of their respective deterrent forces. Multiple, complex security dilemmas, and the possibility that established alliances and partnerships might not be sufficiently reliable, inform the choices that have to be made. The study concludes that while the current arsenals will remain fundamental to national security, their long term futures are far from certain. Budgetary constraints, domestic politics, and strategic perceptions informed by national nuclear mentalities are the main factors determining the outcome and composition of French and British arsenals beyond 2030. Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Niklas Granholm, John Rydqvist FOI-R--4587--SE ISSN1650-1942 www.foi.se April 2018 Niklas Granholm John Rydqvist Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Bild/Cover: HMS Victorious returning to Clyde. Photo UK MoD. FOI-R--4587--SE Titel Kärnvapen I Europa: Storbritanniens och Frankrikes kärnvapenarsenaler Title Nuclear weapons in Europe: British and French deterrence forces Rapportnr/Report no FOI-R--4587--SE Månad/Month April Utgivningsår/Year 2018 Antal sidor/Pages 79 ISSN 1650-1942 Kund/Customer Försvarsdepartementet Forskningsområde 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Background Further Details on MBDA And
    [Unofficial English translation] Introduction The exclusion of EADS from the investment universe of the Government Pension Fund – Global has been reviewed. There is no longer a basis for exclusion of the company from investments related to involvement in the production of cluster munitions. The recommendation to exclude the company is however upheld because the company is involved in production of key components to nuclear weapons. Background On 16 June 2005, the Advisory Council on Ethics for the Government Petroleum Fund submitted its recommendation on exclusion of companies that are involved in the production of cluster munitions.1 The company EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) was among the companies that were recommended for exclusion. The basis for the exclusion of EADS was that the company in a letter to Norges Bank dated June 8, 2005, stated that the company owned the company TDA in a joint venture with the company Thales S.A. Moreover, EADS stated that TDA produced the mortar ammunition PR Cargo, which the Council considered to be cluster ammunition according to the Fund’s ethical guidelines. In a new letter to Norges Bank, dated 21 March, 2006, EADS stated that the company no longer is an owner of TDA and, thus, that there is no longer a basis for exclusion of the company from investments related to involvement in production of cluster munitions. On 19 September 2005, the Council submitted its recommendation on exclusion of companies that develop and produce nuclear weapons.2 EADS is mentioned in this recommendation because of its ownership in the company MBDA and its involvement in the development of the nuclear missile M51.
    [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]