DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation Ludwig Weigl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation Ludwig Weigl UNIVERSITÄT DER BUNDESWEHR MÜNCHEN Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften Thema der Dissertation: Strategische Einsatzplanungen der NATO Einflussfaktoren, Inhalte, Umsetzungsmaßnahmen Verfasser: Ludwig Weigl Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Gottfried Küenzlen 1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Schwarz 2. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Armin Steinkamm 3. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Weiß 4. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Ursula Münch Tag der Prüfung: 31. Mai 2005 Mit der Promotion erlangter akademischer Grad: Doktor der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) Neubiberg, September 2005 Strategische Einsatzplanungen der NATO Einflussfaktoren, Inhalte, Umsetzungsmaßnahmen I Inhaltsverzeichnis Abkürzungsverzeichnis V Glossar VIII Einleitung 1 I. Der Planungszeitraum 1945 – 1949 10 1. Die politische und militärische Entwicklung 10 a. Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs 10 b. Streitkräftestärken 11 c. Die kommunistische Expansion 12 d. Westliche Reaktionen und Schritte 14 2. Die Bedrohungsperzeption des Westens 20 3. Westliche Planungen für einen möglichen Krieg mit der Sowjetunion 24 4. Die Anfangsplanungen der NATO 27 a. Organisatorische Schritte 27 b. Entstehungsgang der Initialplanung 28 c. Planungsinhalte DC 6/1 30 II. Der Planungszeitraum 1950 – 1960 34 1. Verstetigung der Erstplanung – konzeptionelle Grundlagen für die Folgeplanung 34 a. Das Kräfteverhältnis 1950 34 b. Das Dokument MC 14 35 c. Das Dokument DC 13 38 d. Das US-Dokument NSC 68 41 e. Umsetzungsmaßnahmen 47 e.a. Im politisch-strategischen Bereich 47 e.b. Im organisatorischen Bereich 48 e.c. Im strukturellen Bereich 49 2. Die neue Strategie 51 a. Der Einstieg in die Strategie der „Massiven Vergeltung” 51 a.a. Roll back 51 a.b. Vorläuferplanung für die „Massive Vergeltung” 52 a.c. Entwicklung der Massiven Vergeltung 54 b. Europäische Anpassung und Regionale Ausformung der Strategie der „Massiven Vergeltung“ 56 b.a. Die Dokumente MC 48 und MC 48/1 56 b.b. Die Dokumente MC 14/2 und MC 48/2 60 b.c. Beispiele für Umsetzungsmaßnahmen 66 II III. Der Planungszeitraum 1961 – 1989 70 1. Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen Strategie 70 a. Das militärische Kräfteverhältnis USA - UdSSR 1960 70 b. Das Prinzip der Abschreckung 71 c. Das Umdenken 74 2. Die Strategie der „Flexible Response” 79 a. MC 14/3 79 b. MC 48/3 83 3. Ausgestaltung und Umsetzung der Strategie in Mitteleuropa 86 a. Ausbildungsrichtlinien für den Einsatz von Nuklearwaffen 86 b. Vorneverteidigung 87 b.a. Wesen und Aufgaben 87 b.b. Konventionelle Kräfte 90 b.c. Raumordung 91 b.d. Zuständigkeitsregelungen 91 c. Das Verstärkungswesen 94 d. Wartime Host Nation Support (WHNS) 96 e. Planungsrelevante Ereignisse und Daten 99 f. Kräftevergleich und Landkriegskonzept des WP 102 g. Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA) 105 4. Alternative Strategien 111 IV. Der Planungszeitraum 1990-2000 115 1. Nach der Wende – Neue Aufgaben und neue Herausforderungen für die NATO 115 a. Entscheidung zwischen Auflösung und Neugestaltung 115 b. Sicherheitspolitische Lage nach 1989 116 b.a. Multipolarität und neue Herausforderungen 116 b.b. Folgerungen für die Sicherheitspolitik 123 2. Das Neue Strategische Konzept von Rom 1991 126 a. Auf dem Weg zum Konzept 126 b. Das Strategische Konzept von Rom, 1991 131 c. Die Umsetzung des Strategischen Konzepts 135 c.a. Umsetzung im strategisch- operativen Bereich 135 c.b. Umsetzung im strukturellen Bereich 139 c.c. Umsetzung im Verhältnis mit den Staaten des ehemaligen Warschauer Pakts und anderen Nicht-NATO-Staaten 143 3. Das neue Strategische Konzept von Washington, 1999 156 a. Auf dem Weg zum Konzept 156 b. Das Strategische Konzept 158 c. Flankierende Maßnahmen 162 c.a. Der „Membership Action Plan” (MAP) 163 c.b. Die „Defense Capabilities Initiative” (DCI) 165 III V. Besonderheiten der Nuklearstrategie 168 1. Einführung 168 2. Begriff der Nuklearpolitik 169 3. Rüstungsentwicklung bei den nuklearen Waffensystemen 170 a. Rüstungsentwicklung im nuklear-strategischen Bereich 170 b. Rüstungsentwicklung bei den nuklearen Waffensystemen in Europa 171 4. Entwicklung der Nuklearstrategie 173 a. Im nuklearstrategischen Bereich 173 a.a. Der Planungszeitraum 1945 - 1949 173 a.b. Der Planungszeitraum 1950 - 1960 175 a.c. Der Planungszeitraum 1961 - 1989 179 a.d. Der Planungszeitraum 1990 - 2000 194 b. Im taktischen Bereich 199 b.a. Hintergrund 200 b.b. Zweck der Gefechtsfeld-Nuklearstreitkräfte 201 b.c. Erforderliche Charakteristika 202 b.d. Nukleare Operationen 203 5. Politische Kontrolle, Zuordnung von Zielen und nukleare Freigabe 204 a. Politische Kontrolle 204 b. Zielplanung 205 b.a. Im amerikanischen Bereich 205 b.b. Im NATO-Bereich 206 c. Freigabe 207 6. Nukleare Teilhabe 208 7. Der Ersteinsatz 214 8. Die sowjetisch-russische Nuklearstrategie 217 VI. Zivile NATO-Verteidigung 225 1. Aufgaben 225 2. Organisation 226 a. Organisationskomponente im Generalsekretariat der NATO 226 b. Die Ratsausschüsse für die zivile NATO-Verteidigung 226 b.a. Der Oberausschuss für zivile Verteidigungsplanung 227 b.b. Die Planungsausschüsse 227 b.c. Die NATO-Kriegsbehörden (NATO Civil Wartime Agencies) 230 3. Die Weiterentwicklung der Zivilen NATO-Verteidigung nach 1990 231 IV VII. Konstanten der alten, Herausforderungen an die künftige NATO – Planung 234 1. Konstanten der alten NATO - Planung 234 a. Fortentwicklung der strategischen Planung 234 b. Kontinuität 235 c. Flexibilität 237 d. Interdependenzen in der NATO-Planung 238 e. Der US-Einfluss 240 2. Herausforderungen an die künftige NATO - Planung 242 a. Das veränderte Umfeld 242 a.a. Für die globale Sicherheit bedeutsame Entwicklungstrends 242 a.b. Besondere Risiken 244 a.c. Das veränderte Kriegsbild 246 b. Folgerungen für die NATO 250 b.a. Sicherheitspolitik 250 b.b. Streitkräfte 251 b.c. Strategien, Doktrinen, (Re-) Aktionsformen 255 b.d. Der Gipfel von Prag am 21./22. November 2002 259 Anlagen 262 Literaturverzeichnis 271 V Abkürzungsverzeichnis ABC Atomar, biologisch, chemisch ABM Anti Ballistic Missile ACE Allied Command Europe ACLANT Allied Command Atlantic ADM Atomic Demolition Munition AF Augmentation Forces AFCENT Allied Forces Central Europe AFNORTH Allied Forces Northern Europe AFSOUTH Allied Forces Southern Europe ALB Air Land Battle AMFL Allied Mobile Force Land APOD Aerial Port of Debarkation ARRC Allied Rapid Reaction Corps ASprk Atom-Sprengköpfe ATAF Allied Tactical Air Force ATP Allied Tactical Publications BE Belgique C3 Command, Control and Communication C3I Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence CEP Circular Error Probability oder Civil Emergency Planning CIMIC Civil-Military Cooperation CINCEUR Commander in Chief Central Europe CINCLANT Commander in Chief Atlantic CJTF Combined Joint Task Force CM Cruise Missiles CN Canadian COB Collocated Operating Base DC Defense Committee DCI Defense Capabilities Initiative DDR Deutsche Demokratische Republik DPC Defense Planning Committee EAC Echelon Above Corps EAM Griechische Befreiungsfront EAPR Euro-Atlantischer Partnerschaftsrat EG Europäische Gemeinschaft ERINT Extended Range Interceptor ERNA Ethnisch, Religiös, Nationalistisch ERP European Recovery Program ESVI Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsidentität EU Europäische Union FM Field Manual (als dt. Abkürzung: Fernmelde-) FOFA Follow On Forces Attack GB Great Britain GDP General Defense Plan GE Germany G-PALS Global- Protection Against Limited Strikes GUS Gemeinschaft Unabhängiger Staaten VI HDv Heeresdienstvorschrift HNS Host Nation Support HQ Headquarters ICBM Inter Continental Ballistic Missile IFOR Implementation Force INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces IRMB Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile IW Information Warfare Kominform Kommunistisches Informationsbüro KSZE Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa KT Kilo- Tonne KVAE Konferenz über Vertrauensbildung und Abrüstung in Europa LANDJUT Land (Forces) JUTLAND LRINF Longer-range Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces LRTNF Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces MAD Mutually Assured Destruction MAP Membership Action Plan MBFR Mutual Balanced Force Reduction MC Military Committee MCG Mediterranean Cooperation Group MDF Main Defense Forces MIRV Multiple Independently-Targetable Re-Entry Vehicle MNC Major NATO Commanders MNCNE Multi-National Corps North-East MNDC Multi-National Division Central MOB Main Operating Base MOE Mittel-Ost-Europa MRBM Medium-Range Ballistic Missile MRTNF Medium-Range Theater Nuclear Forces MSC Major Subordinate Commander MTCR Missile Technology Control Regime NAKR Nordatlantischer Kooperationsrat NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NDAC Nuclear Defense Affairs Committee NL Netherlands NMD National Missile Defense NOP National Operation Plan NORTHAG Northern Army Group NPG Nuclear Planning Group NSC National Security Council NSTL National Strategic Target List OEEC Organisation European Economic Cooperation OSZE Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa PARP Planning And Review Process PfP Partnership for Peace PMSC Political-Military Steering Committee POMCUS Pre-Positioning of Operational Material Configured to Units Sets POMSS Pre-positioned Operational Material Storage Site PPC Partnership Coordination Cell RMA Revolution in Military Affairs VII RRF Rapid Reaction Forces RRP Rapid Reinforcement Plan SAC Strategic Air Command SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander Europe SACLANT Supreme Allied Command Atlantic SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SAM Surface to Air Missile SCEPC Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee SDI Strategic Defence Initiative SFOR Stabilisation Force SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe SIOP Single Integrated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arctic Security and Outer Space
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF Byers, M. (2020). Arctic Security and Outer Space. Scandinavian MILITARY STUDIES Journal of Military Studies, 3(1), pp. 183–196. DOI: https://doi. org/10.31374/sjms.56 RESEARCH ARTICLE Arctic Security and Outer Space Michael Byers Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, CA. This article was delivered in Nuuk, Greenland, as the keynote speech at the Signature Conference of the Royal Danish Defence College, on 2 October 2019. It builds on an earlier piece: ‘Cold, dark, and dangerous: international cooperation in the arctic and space,’ Polar Record 55(1), 32–47, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247419000160 [email protected] Journalists often portray the Arctic and Space as rife with economic competition, contested territorial claims, and impending conflicts. In actuality, there is extensive and ongoing coopera- tion between Russia and Western states in both regions. A number of factors common to the Arctic and to Space contribute to this ongoing cooperation, including ‘complex interdependence’ and widely agreed rules of international law. This article focuses on three further common factors: the ‘cold, dark, and dangerous’ character of the regions; the absence of substantial ‘weaponisation’; and the relative ease with which information about military activities may be gathered in the Arctic and Space, for instance through Space-based technologies. The latter factor enables Arctic and Space-faring states to avoid classic ‘security dilemmas’. Keywords: Arctic; Space; Security; International Cooperation; International Law; Russia; NATO 1. Introduction The Arctic is closely connected to Outer Space (‘Space’). The Arctic climate is a consequence of Earth’s orbital mechanics, most notably the tilt of the planet, which leads to the absence of sunlight in winter and to 24-hour sunlight in summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Outer Space Treaty Modifications
    Russia Outer Space Treaty Modifications vengesTully still onside. refashions ineluctably while pleural Woodie libel that bullaries. Bothersome Sigfried coapt spikily. Occultist Ian The program enriched by further declares that during outer space station elements of the original of the initial major advances in space debris and, who put all personnel to And we thank those nations which have had the courage to do so already. The relevance of this case for the treatment of the space commons may be somewhat speculative since currently the General Agreement on Trade in Services does not apply to launch services. Outer Space Treaty have been expanded and reaffirmed into new specific international conventions and agreements, Dr. Special responsibility to russia under international laws or russia outer space treaty modifications to establish relevant to make its space. Bilibino Energy Hub, however, and the American environment that is conducive to innovation as well as private sector operations and growth is vital. Removing such weapons from Europe would not require NATO to eliminate either nuclear first use or response options. Supplementary Procedures for Large, the Outer Space Treaty and the UN Charter make its military UN applications clearly not inconsistent with its wider civil object and purposes. Party would be grouped into force application sponsored conference, modifications would be willing, mobilised one hundred options, russia outer space treaty modifications essential for. Moon Treaty which provides that the placing of vehicles on the surface of the moon does not constitute an appropriation. Despite ongoing problems which it free for outer space treaty modifications essential in russia outer space treaty modifications made.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Ballistic Missile Defence and Nuclear Arms Control
    10. Ballistic missile defence and nuclear arms control SHANNON N. KILE I. Introduction In 2001 the international controversy over the United States’ missile defence plans and the future of the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) came to a head. On 13 December, President George W. Bush announced that the USA would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Bush’s announcement was widely expected and did not undermine commitments made by Russia and the USA the previous month to further reduce their nuclear arsenals. Against the background of improving political relations, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin had pledged to make significant new cuts in US and Russian strategic nuclear forces. As the year ended, however, there was disagreement between Russia and the USA over whether these reductions would be made within the framework of an arms control treaty or as parallel, non-legally binding initiatives. This chapter reviews the principal developments in missile defence and nuclear arms control in 2001. Section II describes the US administration’s decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and assesses the reaction of Russia and other states. It also examines changes in the US programme to develop and deploy a missile defence system designed to protect the United States and its allies from a limited ballistic missile attack. Section III examines the Russian and US commitments to make further nuclear force reductions. It also notes the completion of the reductions in strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) and accountable warheads mandated by the 1991 Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START I Treaty).
    [Show full text]
  • Arms Control – II
    CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 For Additional material see: CSIS.ORG Comment to: [email protected] Concepts of Arms Control – II Global Controls and East- West Agreements Anthony H. Cordesman Senior Fellow for Strategic Assessment May 2000 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. Concepts of Arms Control II – Key Agreements 5/17/00 Page 2 Table of Contents Part One: The Global Tools at Hand: Strategic Nuclear Forces and the Impact of START ......................................................................................................................................4 The Nuclear Dimension ..........................................................................................................5 US, Russian, and Ukrainian Strategic Nuclear Forces Declared for Start I...............................7 The US, Russian, and Ukrainian Strategic Nuclear Triad Declared for Start I..........................8 US and Russian Deployed Strategic Nuclear Forces................................................................9 US, Russian, and Ukrainian ICBMs Declared for Start I .......................................................10 US and Russian Deployed ICBM Missiles ............................................................................11 US, Russian, and Ukrainian ICBM Warheads Declared for Start I.........................................12 US, Russian, and Ukrainian SLBMs Declared for Start I.......................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • START II Treaty*
    552 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER the Tribunal should be deemed equivalent to requests by a foreign government under such a treaty and as authorizing extradition to the Tribunal; (2) incorpo- rate the pertinent language of selected articles of a modern extradition treaty relating to the issues requiring particular regulation; and (3) preclude the denial of extradition on the basis that the crimes charged before the Tribunal are "political offenses." III. Conclusion The Section of International Law and Practice believes that the ABA should support the establishment of the Tribunal and urge Congress to promptly adopt implementing legislation to enable the President of the United States to give full support to the Tribunal. The Section further believes that the ABA should urge that every effort be made to assure that due process and procedural guarantees are fully respected in the implementation of the Tribunal's mandate. Endorsement of the Tribunal through adoption of the accompanying recom- mendation by the American Bar Association will further the process begun by the United Nations to prosecute those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. In addition, it will strengthen the ability of the U.S. Government to effect the implementation of the Tribunal's mandate in a manner consistent with due process and procedural guarantees and will lend support to the U.S. Congress in adopting appropriate implementing legislation. Such an endorsement by the ABA will thus further Goal VIII of the Association-to advance the rule of law in the world. Respectfully submitted, Louis B. Sohn Chair Section of International August 1993 Law and Practice II.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
    2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 2–27 May 2005 New York 2005 NPT Review Conference 2–27 May 2005, New York C O N T E N T S 1. THE 2005 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE IAEA IN RELATION TO THE NPT 3. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION 4. DECISIONS AND RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE 1995 NPT REVIEW AND EXTENSION CONFERENCE 5. FINAL DOCUMENT OF THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE 6. LIST OF STATES THAT HAVE RATIFIED OR ACCEDED TO THE NPT AS OF 1 MARCH 2005 7. TEXT OF THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 2005 NPT Review Conference 2–27 May 2005, New York Ambassador Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte (Brazil) President-designate of the 2005 NPT Review Conference Media Contacts for the 2005 NPT Review Conference Mr. Michael Cassandra Mr. Nikolai Rogosaroff United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs S-3151A S-3170F Telephone: (212)963-7714 Telephone: 917-367-2158 Fax: (917)367-5369 Fax: 212-963-8892 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 2005 NPT Review Conference 1 2–27 May 2005, New York THE 2005 REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the terminated in 1949 without the achievement of this Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons objective, due to serious political differences between (NPT) will meet at the United Nations in New York from the major Powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground
    Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR3063 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0021-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Pete Soriano/Adobe Stock Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of the RAND Corporation research project Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Space and Global Security
    UNIDIR/2003/26 Outer Space and Global Security UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva, Switzerland Project Ploughshares Canada Waterloo, Canada The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies Vancouver, Canada NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. * * * The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. UNIDIR/2003/26 Copyright © United Nations, 2003 All rights reserved UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.03.0.26 ISBN 92-9045-155-6 The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)—an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations—conducts research on disarmament and security. UNIDIR is based in Geneva, Switzerland, the centre for bilateral and multilateral disarmament and non- proliferation negotiations, and home of the Conference on Disarmament. The Institute explores current issues pertaining to the variety of existing and future armaments, as well as global diplomacy and local entrenched tensions and conflicts. Working with researchers, diplomats, Government officials, NGOs and other institutions since 1980, UNIDIR acts as a bridge between the research community and Governments. UNIDIR’s activities are funded by contributions from Governments and donors foundations. The Institute’s web site can be found at URL: http://www.unidir.org Cover page: designed by Diego Oyarzún-Reyes (UNCTAD) iv CONTENTS Page Preface.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial, Military and Arms Control Trade-Offs
    Occasional Paper No. 10 Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs James Clay Moltz, ed. Special Joint Series on Missile/Space Issues CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES University Mountbatten Centre for International Studies of Southampton THE CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES The mission of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) is to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. Dr. William C. Potter is the director of CNS, which has a staff of over 60 full-time personnel and approximately 65 student research assistants, with offices in Monterey, CA; Washington, DC; and Almaty, Kazakhstan. CNS is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues. CNS gratefully acknowledges the support of the following funders and thanks them for their commitment to our mission: the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Center for Global Partnership, the Compton Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the Japan-United States Friendship Commission, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John Merck Fund, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Ploughshares Fund, the Prospect Hill Foundation, and the Scherman Foundation. For more information of the projects and publications of CNS, contact: Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies 460 Pierce Street Monterey, California 93940 USA Tel: 831.647.4154 Fax: 831.647.3519 Email: [email protected] Internet Web Site: http://cns.miis.edu CNS Publications Staff Editor-in-Chief Leonard S. Spector Editor Scott Parrish THE MOUNTBATTEN CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES The Mountbatten Centre for International Studies (MCIS) is based in the Politics Department of the University of Southampton, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • США И Россия: 210 Лет Дипломатических Отношений И Международной Коммуникации USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and International Communication
    УДК 930.85 НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14 ОБЩИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКИ США и Россия: 210 лет дипломатических отношений и международной коммуникации USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and International Communication DOI: 10.12737/ article_58fda885671132.23223626 Получено: 13 февраля 2017 г. / Одобрено: 17 февраля 2017 г. / Опубликовано: 17 мая 2017 г. Р.О. Райнхардт R.O. Raynkhardt Канд. экон. наук, преподаватель кафедры Ph.D. (World Economy), Lecturer at the Department дипломатии МГИМО МИД России, for Diplomatic Studies Россия, 119454, Москва, пр-т Вернадского, 76, Moscow State Institute of International Relations e-mail: [email protected] (University), 76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia, e-mail: [email protected] Аннотация Abstract Статья посвящена 210-летнему юбилею установления дипломати- The article is dedicated to the 210th anniversary of establishment of dip- ческих отношений между США и Россией и раскрывает историю их lomatic relations between the United States of America and Russia and развития. Рассмотрены основные вопросы российско-американ- casts light upon their genesis and development. It provides an acute insight ской повестки на протяжении более двухсот лет. При комплексном into the key issues of US-Russian agenda within a time span of more than исследовании предмета автор делает акцент на отдельных кейсах, 200 years. Along with giving a holistic picture of the subject, the author ключевых с точки зрения понимания текущей геополитической конъ- focuses on specific cases crucial for understanding the current geopolitical юнктуры, определяемой взаимодействием двух стран. Анализируя juncture shaped by the interaction of the two nations. With an emphasis on различия в их политической культуре, автор выявляет важную роль differences in political culture, he outlines the important role of cross-cultural межкультурной коммуникации в рамках соответствующих историче- communication within the framework of the respective cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of START II: the Russian View
    The Rise and Fall of START II: The Russian View Alexander A. Pikayev Non-Proliferation Project GLOBAL POLICY PROGRAM Number 6 September 1999 THE RISE AND FALL OF START II © 1999 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Carnegie Endowment. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 483-7600 Fax: (202) 483-1840 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ceip.org Carnegie Endowment Working Papers Carnegie Endowment Working Papers present new research by Endowment associates and their collaborators from other institutions. The series includes new time-sensitive research and key excerpts from larger works in progress. Comments from readers are most welcome; please reply to the authors at the address above or by e-mail to [email protected]. * * * This paper expands on a chapter originally written for a forthcoming study on the non- proliferation regime, Repairing the Regime, edited by Joseph Cirincione and published by Routledge and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Toby Dalton, project associate with the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, provided extensive editing and production assistance toward the completion of this working paper About the Author Alexander A. Pikayev is a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center, where he directs activities for the Non-Proliferation Project. Dr. Pikayev was previously a director of the section on arms control and nonproliferation at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences; and chief counselor of the State Duma Committee on Defense (1996–1997) and Subcommittee on Arms Control and International Security (1994–1995).
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the ABM Treaty in Russia
    A History of the ABM Treaty in Russia Pavel Podvig February 2000 PONARS Policy Memo 109 Center for Arms Control, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology In the current debate about the future of the ABM treaty, Russia's official position is that the treaty is "the cornerstone of strategic stability" and therefore an attempt to modify it would destroy the foundations of US-Russian nuclear arms control. Although Russian officials claim that this official position has never changed, a closer look reveals that Russia's attitude toward the ABM treaty has undergone a number of changes in recent years. ! It is also interesting to look at the history of negotiations on demarcation between strategic and non-strategic systems, for it reflects the inconsistency between the Russian and US approaches to the issue. It also shows that Russia and the United States share responsibility for the current uncertainty over the future of the ABM Treaty. The Soviet Union and the ABM Treaty If we look at the first fifteen years of the ABM treaty history, we will find out that as a rule it was the Soviet Union that was on the defensive. The United States repeatedly raised questions about Soviet compliance with the treaty, although most problems fell into "gray" areas of the treaty. To eliminate these, the United States and the Soviet Union worked out a number of agreed statements that regulated the disputed issues, such as "testing in ABM mode." In 1983 the United States announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ballistic missile defense program, which for a long time became the focus of the ABM Treaty debate.
    [Show full text]