DOCSLIB.ORG

Military Law Review, Volume 224, Issue 4, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Volume 224 Issue 4 2016 ACADEMIC JOURNAL 27-100-224-4 MILITARY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES UCLEAR EAPONS ARGETING HE VOLUTION OF AW AND OLICY N W T : T E L U.S. P MILITARY LAW REVIEW LAW MILITARY Lieutenant Colonel Theodore T. Richard REDEFINING THE NARRATIVE: WHY CHANGES TO MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 513 REQUIRE THE COURTS TO TREAT THE PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AS NEARLY ABSOLUTE Major Angel M. Overgaard GENDER ADVISORS IN NATO: SHOULD THE U.S. MILITARY FOLLOW SUIT? Lieutenant Colonel Keirsten H. Kennedy WHY “GREEN DREAMS” SHOULD NOT COME TRUE: KEEPING BOARDS OF CONTRACT AP- PEALS OFF THE SCALES OF JUSTICE Major Elinor J. Kim CONDUCTING UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Major Jim Sleesman BAD PAPER: REFORMING THE ARMY REPRIMAND PROCESS VOLUME 224 • 2016 Captain Mark E. Bojan Academic Journal 27-100-224-4 Military Law Review Volume 224 Issue 4 2016 CONTENTS Articles Nuclear Weapons Targeting: The Evolution of Law and U.S. Policy Lieutenant Colonel Theodore T. Richard 862 Redefining the Narrative: Why Changes to Military Rule of Evidence 513 Require Courts to Treat the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege as Nearly Absolute Major Angel M. Overgaard 979 Gender Advisors in NATO: Should the U.S. Military Follow Suit? Lieutenant Colonel Keirsten H. Kennedy 1052 Why “Green Dreams” Should Not Come True: Keeping Boards of Contract Appeals off the Scales of Justice Major Elinor J. Kim 1073 Conducting Unconventional Warfare in Compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict Major Jim Sleesman 1101 Bad Paper: Reforming the Army Reprimand Process Captain Mark E. Bojan 1150 i Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. Academic Journal No. 27-100-224-4, 2016 Military Law Review Volume 224 Issue 4 Board of Editors Colonel Randall Bagwell Dean, The Judge Advocate General’s School Lieutenant Colonel May Nicholson Chair, Administrative and Civil Law Department Major Laura O’Donnell Director, Professional Communications Program Mr. Sean Lyons Legal Editor Mr. Benjamin Spencer Contributing Editor Captain Vanessa R. Asmus Editor Since its inception in 1958 at The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army, in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Military Law Review has encouraged a full and frank discussion of legislative, administrative, and judicial principles through a scholarly examination of the law and emerging legal precepts. In support of that mission, the Military Law Review publishes scholarly articles that are relevant to, and materially advance, the practice of law within the military. The Military Law Review does not promulgate official policy. An article’s content is the sole responsibility of that article’s author, and the opinions and conclusions that are reflected in an article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, The Judge Advocate ii General’s Corps, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, or any other governmental or non-governmental agency. WEBSITE: The Military Law Review is available at http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/MLR. COPYRIGHT: Unless noted in an article’s title, all articles are works of the United States Government in which no copyright subsists. When copyright is indicated in the title, please contact the Military Law Review at [email protected] for copyright clearance. SUBSCRIPTIONS: Interested parties may purchase private subscriptions from the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at (202) 512-1800. An annual subscription is $20 for a domestic subscriber or $28 for an international subscriber. For Army legal offices, including within the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve, and other federal agencies, inquiries and address- change requests should be communicated to the Military Law Review. Other military services may request distribution through official publication channels. This periodical’s postage is paid at Charlottesville, Virginia, and additional mailing offices. Reprints of published works are not available. POSTMASTER: Send address-change requests to Military Law Review, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, U.S. Army, 600 Massie Road, ATTN: ALCS-ADA-P, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781. CITATION: This issue of the Military Law Review may be cited as 224 MIL. L. REV. page number (2016). SUBMISSION OF WORKS: The Military Law Review accepts submissions of works from military and civilian authors. Any work that is submitted for publication will be evaluated by the Military Law Review’s Board of Editors. In determining whether to publish a work, the Board considers the work in light of the Military Law Review’s mission and evaluates the work’s argument, research, and style. No minimum or maximum length requirement exists. Footnotes should be numbered consecutively from the beginning to the end of the writing, not section by section. Citations must conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform iii System of Citation (20th ed. 2015) and to the Military Citation Guide (TJAGLCS 21st ed. 2016). A submitted work should include biographical data concerning the author or authors. This information should consist of branch of service, duty title, present and prior positions or duty assignments, all degrees (with names of granting schools and years received), and previous publications. If submitting a lecture or a paper prepared in partial fulfillment of degree requirements, the author should include the date and place of delivery of the lecture or the date and source of the degree. All submissions must be in Microsoft Word format and should be sent to the Editor, Military Law Review, at usarmy.pentagon.hqda- [email protected]. If electronic mail is not available, please forward the submission, double-spaced, to the Military Law Review, Administrative and Civil Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, U.S. Army, 600 Massie Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781. iv INDIVIDUAL PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MILITARY LAW REVIEW The Government Printing Office offers a paid subscription service to the Military Law Review. To receive an annual individual paid subscription (4 issues), complete and return the order form on the next page. RENEWALS OF PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS: You can determine when your subscription will expire by looking at your mailing label. Check the number that follows “ISSDUE” on the top line of the mailing label as shown in this example: When this digit is 7, you will be sent a renewal notice. MILR SMITH212J ISSDUE007 R1 JOHN SMITH 212 BROADWAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 The numbers following ISSDUE indicate how many issues remain in the subscription. For example, ISSDUE001 indicates a subscriber will receive one more issue. When the number reads ISSDUE000, you have received your last issue and you must renew. To avoid a lapse in your subscription, promptly return the renewal notice with payment to the Superintendent of Documents. If your subscription service is discontinued, simply send your mailing label from any issue to the Superintendent of Documents with the proper remittance and your subscription will be reinstated. INQUIRIES AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION: The Superintendent of Documents, and not the Editors of the Military Law Review, is solely responsible for the individual paid subscription service. For inquires and change of address for individual paid subscriptions, fax your mailing label and new address to 202-512-2250, or send your mailing label and new address to the following address: United States Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents ATTN: Chief, Mail List Branch Mail Stop: SSOM Washington, DC 20402 v MILITARY LAW REVIEW Volume 224 Issue 4 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TARGETING: THE EVOLUTION OF LAW AND U.S. POLICY LIEUTENANT COLONEL THEODORE T. RICHARD* The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.1 I. Introduction Hiroshima was not a military base, but a city in Japan, when it was struck with the first ever military atomic bomb strike at 8:15 A.M. on August 6, 1945. President Truman’s diary entry from July 25, 1945, recorded his recollection of a conversation that he had with Secretary of War Henry Stimson the previous day during which the President instructed Stimson to use the atomic bomb “so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.”2 He also wrote Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Richard is a United States Air Force Judge Advocate and is currently serving as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at United States Strategic Command. The author thanks Professor Sean Watts, Dr. Jerome Martin and Dr. Daniel Harrington for their insights and guidance into law and history, respectively. The author 863 MILITARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 224 that he and his Secretary of War were agreed that “[t]he target will be a purely military one.”3 Nothing else in the historical record appears to corroborate President Truman’s recollection of events. President Truman’s classification of the bombing as a purely military objective has caused
Recommended publications
  • 'Civil' Platform Offers Help for Newsrooms and Journalists Cast

    'Civil' Platform Offers Help for Newsrooms and Journalists Cast

    MONTHLY NEWSLETTER I July-August 2018 Cast Your Vote to Elect an Eclectic Slate INSIDE of New OPC Officers and Governors Election Slate 2-4 by brian byrd ceived this link by Aug. 6, please e-mail People Column 6-7 [email protected] to obtain it. s chair of this year’s nominating committee – The deadline for voting is Monday, Sept. 3 at noon, Press Freedom which includes club President Deidre Depke, Update 8-9 and the results will be announced at the Annual Meet- and governors Emma Daly and William A ing on Sept. 4. Each ballot requires a login, which is New Books 10 Holstein – it is with great pride that I nominate a slate your e-mail address where you received the ballot link. of officers and board candidates who have the energy, The system allows one voting ballot and delineates Q&A: talent and drive to guide the OPC through these turbu- Ceylan Yeginsu 11 between Active and Associate members. For those lent times. The Committee made it a priority to select who prefer to use a paper ballot, please send an email candidates for a slate that is balanced, a well-mixed to [email protected] or call the OPC office at combination comprising young journalists as well 212-626-9220. as those with distinguished careers. Each of them is One final thought. Everyday our members strive exceptional. to truthfully capture events as they unfold, to provide This year, the OPC is electing nine (9) governors meaning and perspective, despite being declared an who are Active members and three (3) who are Associ- “enemy of the public” or members of “fake news.” To ate members.
  • 2021 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust

    2021 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust

    Glasses of those murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau Nazi German concentration and death camp (1941-1945). © Paweł Sawicki, Auschwitz Memorial 2021 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF COMMEMORATION IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST Programme WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2021 11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M. EST 17:00–19:00 CET COMMEMORATION CEREMONY Ms. Melissa FLEMING Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications MASTER OF CEREMONIES Mr. António GUTERRES United Nations Secretary-General H.E. Mr. Volkan BOZKIR President of the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly Ms. Audrey AZOULAY Director-General of UNESCO Ms. Sarah NEMTANU and Ms. Deborah NEMTANU Violinists | “Sorrow” by Béla Bartók (1945-1981), performed from the crypt of the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris. H.E. Ms. Angela MERKEL Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany KEYNOTE SPEAKER Hon. Irwin COTLER Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Canada H.E. Mr. Gilad MENASHE ERDAN Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations H.E. Mr. Richard M. MILLS, Jr. Acting Representative of the United States to the United Nations Recitation of Memorial Prayers Cantor JULIA CADRAIN, Central Synagogue in New York El Male Rachamim and Kaddish Dr. Irene BUTTER and Ms. Shireen NASSAR Holocaust Survivor and Granddaughter in conversation with Ms. Clarissa WARD CNN’s Chief International Correspondent 2 Respondents to the question, “Why do you feel that learning about the Holocaust is important, and why should future generations know about it?” Mr. Piotr CYWINSKI, Poland Mr. Mark MASEKO, Zambia Professor Debórah DWORK, United States Professor Salah AL JABERY, Iraq Professor Yehuda BAUER, Israel Ms.
  • Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D

    Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D

    Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D. Baum Global Catastrophic Risk Institute http://sethbaum.com * http://gcrinstitute.org Futures 72: 69-79. This version 14 October 2015. Abstract Large-scale nuclear war sends large quantities of smoke into the stratosphere, causing severe global environmental effects including surface temperature declines and increased ultraviolet radiation. The temperature decline and the full set of environmental effects are known as nuclear winter. This paper surveys the range of actions that can confront the threat of nuclear winter, both now and in the future. Nuclear winter can be confronted by reducing the probability of nuclear war, reducing the environmental severity of nuclear winter, increasing humanity’s resilience to nuclear winter, and through indirect interventions that enhance these other interventions. While some people may be able to help more than others, many people—perhaps everyone across the world—can make a difference. Likewise, the different opportunities available to different people suggests personalized evaluations of nuclear winter, and of catastrophic threats more generally, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. Keywords: catastrophic threats, global catastrophic risk, nuclear war, nuclear winter, risk reduction 1. Introduction The explosion of nuclear weapons causes enormous fireballs, burning everything in the vicinity. Most of the ensuing smoke rises past the clouds, into the stratosphere, where it spreads around the world and remains for a time on the order of ten to twenty years. A large enough nuclear war would send up so much smoke that the global environment would be fundamentally altered. Surface temperatures and precipitation would decline, while ultraviolet radiation increases.
  • Deterrence and Extended Deterrence: Key Terms and Definitions

    Deterrence and Extended Deterrence: Key Terms and Definitions

    Deterrence and Extended Deterrence Key Terms and Definitions Jeffrey A. Larsen, Ph.D. Read Ahead Material for PPNT Presentation, UCSD/IGCC, San Diego 23 July 2010 Deterrence Prevention of action by fear of negative consequences A state of mind in one’s adversary, brought about by a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction Credibility = capability + will Purpose: convince a party not to take some action by threatening the destruction of something he considers to be of great value, or by denying him achieving his objectives The opposite of compellence (getting another party to do something they do not want to do) Deterrence by punishment A doctrine used to deter an adversary by threatening the destruction of something he values, such as population centers, key cultural sites, the leadership, or military forces. Deterrence by denial The strategic doctrine used to deter an adversary by denying him the ability to achieve his objectives; this may include a combination of counterforce targeting and active and passive defenses Mutual assured destruction The ability of both sides to guarantee the destruction of the adversary even after suffering from a nuclear first strike. Secure second strike The forces, planning, and basing to ensure that enough offensive striking power remains after a devastating nuclear first strike to still guarantee the destruction of the adversary’s society. Techniques for ensuring a secure second strike may include hardening, dispersal, camouflage, placing forces on alert, or increasing the number of delivery systems. Societal vulnerability The perceived requirement to ensure that both sides’ populations were vulnerable to strategic attack in order to ensure stability between two adversaries.
  • FYE Int 100120A.Indd

    FYE Int 100120A.Indd

    FirstYear & Common Reading CATALOG NEW & RECOMMENDED BOOKS Dear Common Reading Director: The Common Reads team at Penguin Random House is excited to present our latest book recommendations for your common reading program. In this catalog you will discover new titles such as: Isabel Wilkerson’s Caste, a masterful exploration of how America has been shaped by a hidden caste system, a rigid hierarchy of human rankings; Handprints on Hubble, Kathr­n Sullivan’s account of being the fi rst American woman to walk in space, as part of the team that launched, rescued, repaired, and maintained the Hubble Space Telescope; Know My Name, Chanel Miller’s stor­ of trauma and transcendence which will forever transform the way we think about seual assault; Ishmael Beah’s powerful new novel Little Family about young people living at the margins of society; and Brittany Barnett’s riveting memoir A Knock at Midnight, a coming-of-age stor­ by a young la­er and a powerful evocation of what it takes to bring hope and justice to a legal system built to resist them both. In addition to this catalog, our recently refreshed and updated .commonreads.com website features titles from across Penguin Random House’s publishers as well as great blog content, including links to author videos, and the fourth iteration of our annual “Wat Students Will Be Reading: Campus Common Reading Roundup,” a valuable resource and archive for common reading programs across the countr­. And be sure to check out our online resource for Higher Education: .prheducation.com. Featuring Penguin Random House’s most frequently-adopted titles across more than 1,700 college courses, the site allows professors to easily identif­ books and resources appropriate for a wide range of courses.
  • Remembrance of Things Past the Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons

    Remembrance of Things Past the Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons

    Remembrance of Things Past The Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons James Wood Forsyth Jr. B. Chance Saltzman, Colonel, USAF Gary Schaub Jr. So long as there is a finite chance of war, we have to be interested in outcomes; and although all outcomes would be bad, some would be very much worse than others. —Bernard Brodie Much has been written about nuclear weapons, but what has been learned? Once an essential element of American foreign and defense policy, these matters were neglected after the Cold War and all but forgotten after September 11th. As the Schlesinger Commission concluded, “Because nu­ clear weapons have been less prominent since the end of the Cold War and have not been used since World War II, their importance and unique role as a deterrent have been obscured though not diminished.”1 Recent inci­ dents of mismanagement of the US nuclear weapons enterprise, the acqui­ sition of atomic weapons by North Korea, Iran’s apparent quest for such weapons, the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and negotiation of its replacement with Russia, and the decision to engage in a nuclear posture review have brought the attention of policy makers James Wood Forsyth Jr., PhD, currently serves as professor of national security studies, USAF School of Ad­ vanced Air and Space Studies, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He earned his PhD at the Josef Korbel School of Inter­ national Studies, University of Denver. He has written on great-power war, intervention, and nuclear issues. Col B. Chance Saltzman is chief, Strategic Plans and Policy Division, Headquarters Air Force.
  • Rudy Giuliani Lawyer Says Smartmatic Smears Were “Product Disparagement” Not Full-Out Defamation – Update

    Rudy Giuliani Lawyer Says Smartmatic Smears Were “Product Disparagement” Not Full-Out Defamation – Update

    PRINT Rudy Giuliani Lawyer Says Smartmatic Smears Were “Product Disparagement” Not Full-Out Defamation – Update By Jill Goldsmith August 17, 2021 12:34pm Jill Goldsmith Co-Business Editor More Stories By Jill Rudy Giuliani Lawyer Says Smartmatic Smears Were “Product Disparagement” Not Full-Out Defamation – Update CNN’s Clarissa Ward On “Watching History Unfold” In Afghanistan ViacomCBS Sells Black Rock Building In Midtown Manhattan To Harbor Group For $760 Million VIEW ALL Rudy Giuliani AP Photo/John Minchillo Rudy Giuliani’s attorney rehashed conspiracy theories and was light on evidence when pressed by a judge Tuesday in a defamation suit brought by voting software firm Smartmatic. Joe Sibley of Camara & Sibley asked New York State Supreme Court Judge David Cohen to dismiss six of the claims against his client Giuliani because they constituted “product disparagement,” or calling the software lousy, not defamation. The latter is the charge brought by the company in a lawsuit against Fox, three of its hosts, Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Defendants have asked for the case to be dismissed and their counsel, one by one, had the chance at a long hearing today to say why, followed by rebuttals by Smartmatic’s team. Cohen asked Sibley about one of the Trump attorney’s claims — that, in Venezuela, Smartmatic “’switched votes around subtly, maybe ten percent per district, so you don’t notice it.’ Is there some support in that to show that they can’t even make out a claim for actual malice?” he asked. Here’s Sibley’s response and some of the exchange: Sibley: “I believe in the declaration there’s some discussion of how they did it, that they kind of skimmed votes here and there to flip the votes.” Cohen: “What about Mr.
  • JIHADIST TERRORISM 17 YEARS AFTER 9/11 a Threat Assessment

    JIHADIST TERRORISM 17 YEARS AFTER 9/11 a Threat Assessment

    PETER BERGEN AND DAVID STERMAN JIHADIST TERRORISM 17 YEARS AFTER 9/11 A Threat Assessment SEPTEMBER 2018 About the Author(s) Acknowledgments Peter Bergen is a journalist, documentary producer, The authors would like to thank Wesley Je�eries, John vice president for global studies & fellows at New Luebke, Melissa Salyk-Virk, Daiva Scovil, and Tala Al- America, CNN national security analyst, professor of Shabboot for their research support on this paper. The practice at Arizona State University where he co- authors also thank Alyssa Sims and Albert Ford, who directs the Center on the Future of War, and the co-authored the previous year’s assessment which author or editor of seven books, three of which were forms the basis of much of this report. New York Times bestsellers and four of which were named among the best non-�ction books of the year by The Washington Post. David Sterman is a senior policy analyst at New America and holds a master's degree from Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. About New America We are dedicated to renewing America by continuing the quest to realize our nation’s highest ideals, honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create. About International Security The International Security program aims to provide evidence-based analysis of some of the thorniest questions facing American policymakers and the public. We are focused on South Asia and the Middle East, extremist groups such as ISIS, al Qaeda and allied groups, the proliferation of drones, homeland security, and the activities of U.S.
  • Challenging Minimum Deterrence: Articulating the Contemporary Relevance of Nuclear Weapons

    Challenging Minimum Deterrence: Articulating the Contemporary Relevance of Nuclear Weapons

    Challenging Minimum Deterrence Articulating the Contemporary Relevance of Nuclear Weapons Maj Joshua D. Wiitala, USAF* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, theAir and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line. *I would like to thank Dr. Mel Deaile, Maj Brian Styles, and Maj Scott Hughes for their insightful reviews of this article. ince the end of the Cold War, the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons has been the subject of immense debate with policy analysts proposing several alter- native nuclear postures meant to address the evolving geopolitical circumstances Sof the United States. These range from the extreme positions of complete nuclear abo- lition to a renewed interest in war-fighting roles for US nuclear weapons. The current need to initiate recapitalization programs for key elements of the US nuclear force gives this debate added meaning and urgency. One alternative currently under discus- sion is minimum deterrence. This article evaluates minimum deterrence as an alter- native nuclear posture for the United States and introduces “dual deterrence” as a more suitable framework for understanding the contemporary relevance of US nuclear weapons. 16 | Air & Space Power Journal Challenging Minimum Deterrence Understanding Minimum Deterrence In his classic work Strategy in the Missile Age, Bernard Brodie argues that nuclear weapons have changed traditional conceptions of war and that political and military leaders must adapt to these fundamental changes.
  • Russia's Global Reach: a Security and Statecraft Assessment

    Russia's Global Reach: a Security and Statecraft Assessment

    Russia’s Global Reach: A Security and Statecraft Assessment Edited by Graeme P. Herd About the Marshall Center The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies is one of five U.S. Department of Defense Regional Centers and the only bilateral Center. It is also the only regional center for the Federal Republic of Germany. The mission of the Marshall Center is to enable solutions to regional and transnational security challenges through capacity building, access, and a globally connected network. An instrument of German-American cooperation, the center addresses regional and transnational security issues for the U.S. Department of Defense and German Federal Ministry of Defense, and maintains contact with a vast alumni network of security professionals. The legacy, goals, and ideals of the Marshall Plan continue through the security education initiatives of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The Marshall Center, dedicated in 1993, is a renowned international security and defense studies institute that promotes dialogue and understanding among the nations of North America, Europe and Eurasia. The Marshall Center is committed to carrying Marshall's vision into the 21st century. Supported bilaterally by the governments of the United States and Germany, the Marshall Center boasts an international faculty and staff with representatives from ten partner nations. In addition to supporting the European theater security cooperation strategies and objectives, the Marshall Center supports five South and Central Asian States: Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Marshall Center also has a supporting relationship with Mongolia and Afghanistan. For reprint permissions, contact the editor via [email protected].
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction and World Politics

    Weapons of Mass Destruction and World Politics

    17.42 Stephen Van Evera WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND WORLD POLITICS I. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: WHAT THEY ARE Three types of weapons are grouped together (perhaps unwisely) under the rubric of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD). Of these, nuclear and biological weapons are potentially far more powerful than chemical weapons. Biological and chemical weapons have been outlawed by international treaties. The United States dropped its offensive bioweapons program in 1969. Key background questions: A. Would the world be better off if nuclear weapons had never been invented? Would it be better off if nuclear weapons were now abolished? B. Would the world be better off if biological weapons had never been invented? Would it be better off if biological weapons were now abolished? C. If nuclear and biological weapons cannot be abolished or controlled, what should we now do? II. THE TECHNICAL EFFECTS OF THE NUCLEAR REVOLUTION Technologies rarely have decisive effects on war or politics; more often technology is bent to serve politics or military doctrine. Nuclear weapons are an exception. They overwhelm politics and doctrine. Five cascading technical effects flow from the nuclear revolution. These cascade further into political effects listed below in Sections IV and V. The technical effects are: A. Effect #1: hydrogen bombs offer an increase of six orders of magnitude over the power of the TNT explosives used in World War II. The atomic bomb = x 1,000 increase on TNT; the hydrogen bomb = x 1,000 increase on atomic bombs. B. Effect #2: due to 'A', the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, the "cost exchange ratio" vastly favors retaliators over attackers who try to disarm them.
  • Governing the Bomb: Civilian Control and Democratic

    Governing the Bomb: Civilian Control and Democratic

    DCAF GOVERNING THE BOMB Civilian Control and Democratic Accountability of Nuclear Weapons edited by hans born, bates gill and heiner hänggi Governing the Bomb Civilian Control and Democratic Accountability of Nuclear Weapons STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Göran Lennmarker, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Alexei G. Arbatov (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka) Dr Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Professor Mary Kaldor (United Kingdom) The Director DIRECTOR Dr Bates Gill (United States) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 70 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Fax: +46 8 655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org Governing the Bomb Civilian Control and Democratic Accountability of Nuclear Weapons EDITED BY HANS BORN, BATES GILL AND HEINER HÄNGGI OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2010 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © SIPRI 2010 All rights reserved.