DOCSLIB.ORG

Deterrence and Nuclear Targeting in the 21St Century Rebeccah Heinrichs and Baker Spring

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deterrence and Nuclear Targeting in the 21St Century Rebeccah Heinrichs and Baker Spring BACKGROUNDER No. 2747 | NOVEMBER 30, 2012 Deterrence and Nuclear Targeting in the 21st Century Rebeccah Heinrichs and Baker Spring Abstract ews reports indicate the Obama The Obama Administration is NAdministration is seeking to fur- Key Points apparently considering further ther reduce the number of deployed reductions of U.S. nuclear forces based warheads in the U.S. long-range ■■ News reports indicate the on the misguided notion that the world nuclear force to between 300 and Obama Administration is seek- ing to shrink the U.S. nuclear is safer when America adopts a nuclear 1,100.1 In contrast, this analysis con- force to levels that would leave deterrence posture based on a minimal cludes that the appropriate number level of effectiveness. In contrast, a the U.S. with a less effective of operationally deployed warheads nuclear deterrent posture to pro- sound targeting policy consistent should range between 2,700 and tect itself and U.S. friends and with a “protect and defend” strategy 3,000. allies around the world. for the U.S. and its allies and friends The targeting policy recommend- indicates that the U.S. should maintain ■■ Instead, the U.S. should retain ed in this report responds to the approximately 2,700 to 3,000 a nuclear arsenal of 2,700 to multiplying strategic threats that the 3,000 warheads on fully mod- operationally deployed warheads and U.S. will likely face as result of the ernized short-range and long- be flexible enough to permit continuous spread of ballistic missile and weap- range delivery systems. updates. These numbers also assume that the U.S. will modernize its delivery ons of mass destruction technologies. ■■ This recommended range of systems and upgrade its command and It reflects U.S. values and strength- warheads is derived from a “counterforce” targeting policy control structure to meet counterforce ens credibility of U.S. deterrence. and a broader “protect and targeting requirements. Increasing The targeting policy and the target- ing requirements that follow from defend” strategy, which are and maintaining the U.S. military’s designed to hold at risk the asymmetric advantage will protect that policy fundamentally drive the means of strategic attack on the ability of the U.S. to shape events, number of nuclear weapons in the both the U.S. and its friends and rather than be controlled by the wills of U.S. arsenal. Further, the analysis allies and the means by which other nations. provides a general description of the foes maintain oppressive control targeting requirements that follow of their domestic populations. from this policy. ■■ This paper, in its entirety, can be found at The nuclear weapon reductions http://report.heritage.org/bg2747 that the Obama Administra- Produced by the Douglas and Sarah Allison Five Principles of tion is examining appear to be Center for Foreign Policy Studies Nuclear Targeting designed to further President The Heritage Foundation The recommended targeting Obama’s nuclear disarma- 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE policy is based on five principles. ment agenda, not to strengthen Washington, DC 20002 nuclear deterrence in an effort to (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Principle #1: The U.S. should protect the U.S. and its allies and Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily accept a concept of deterrence reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or friends. as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill that leads to a targeting policy before Congress. that is consistent with a “protect BACKGROunDER | NO. 2747 NOVEMBER 30, 2012 and defend” strategy for the This change in declared policy Principle #2: U.S. policymak- country and its allies. U.S. strate- follows from the recognition that ers need to recognize that in the gic planners should start with a basic destroying enemy population and emerging multipolar strategic concept for deterrence that over- economic centers has little political setting no mechanistic, apoliti- arches the chosen targeting policy. and military utility to the U.S., espe- cal equation will identify what The deterrence posture needs to be cially if it all but invites follow-on must be added to the U.S. nucle- credible both to U.S. allies and to strikes against equally undefended ar force or may be subtracted current and potential enemies of the U.S. population and economic cen- without increasing the risk of U.S. It should reflect the values of the ters. Further, purposeful attacks on inviting extremely destructive American people and the federal gov- undefended populations are contrary strategic attacks.5 Rather, nuclear ernment’s solemn commitment to to the values of the American people. deterrence in this setting requires protect and defend them to the best The earlier concept for nuclear deter- evaluating various factors that may of its ability. rence makes it readily apparent that evolve. These factors include the The Heritage Foundation spelled a U.S. President is highly unlikely to national goals of foes, what danger- out this concept for deterrence in a employ U.S. nuclear forces for these ous regimes value, and their willing- 2008 study.2 Both before and after purposes; therefore, the threat of ness to take risks. To treat the threat the release of the 2008 study, The doing so does not represent a cred- of nuclear war as stemming from Heritage Foundation validated this ible deterrent. the U.S. increasing its security and concept in gaming exercises that An effective nuclear deterrence thereby tipping an imaginary bal- tested it against requirements for posture, as a part of a broader stra- ance, rather than recognizing that crisis and arms race stability in pro- tegic deterrence posture, cannot dangerous regimes inimical to the liferated settings.3 This concept for be separated from credible options U.S. and its allies are the true threat deterrence has become the declared to employ nuclear weapons under of conflict and war, is to incorrectly strategic deterrence policy of the specified circumstances. The old portray deterrence as something United States, as stated in the resolu- deterrence concept is both less effec- far more simplistic than it really is. tion of ratification accompanying tive and immoral. Pursuant to the Failure to maintain a dynamic and the New Strategic Arms Reduction protect and defend policy declared in effective nuclear force because of Treaty (New START).4 the New START resolution of rati- a misunderstanding of deterrence The declared protect and defend fication, the U.S. nuclear force, in or an ideological pursuit of rid- policy explicitly abandons the Cold conjunction with strategic defensive ding the world of nuclear weapons War concept of deterrence based forces and strategic conventional could empower America’s foes and on strategic vulnerability, also strike forces, will seek to hold at risk increase the likelihood of a holocaust. described as a balance of terror pol- the means of strategic attack on the Principle #3: This analysis icy, which held that the U.S. needed U.S. and its allies. The U.S. govern- does not make a precise recom- a nuclear force capable of retaliat- ment needs to commence building a mendation on the number of ing against an attacking force by strategic force, including the portion nuclear weapons that should destroying undefended population consisting of nuclear weapons, under make up the U.S. arsenal. The and economic centers. the new declared policy. exact number of nuclear weapons 1. The Obama Administration’s plans for the U.S. short-range nuclear arsenal are not clear. 2. Baker Spring, “Congressional Commission Should Recommend ‘Damage Limitation’ Strategy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2172, August 14, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/congressional-commission-should-recommend-damage-limitation-strategy. 3. Nuclear Stability Working Group, Nuclear Games: An Exercise Examining Stability and Defenses in a Proliferated World, The Heritage Foundation, 2005, http:// www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/11/nuclear-games-an-exercise-examining-stability, and Nuclear Stability Working Group, “Nuclear Games II: An Exercise in Examining the Dynamic of Missile Defenses and Arms Control in a Proliferated World,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 83, July 26, 2010, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/nuclear-games-ii-an-exercise-in-examining-the-dynamic-of-missile-defenses-and-arms-control. 4. U.S. Senate, “Treaty with Russia on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,” Treaty Doc. 111–5, § c(2), December 22, 2010. 5. Keith B. Payne, The Great American Gamble: Deterrence Theory and Practice from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 2008), p. 75. 2 BACKGROunDER | NO. 2747 NOVEMBER 30, 2012 that the U.S. needs is unknowable, targets. This flexibility and preci- political leadership led by President particularly in a nonclassified setting. sion is necessary because, when an Barack Obama is making a concert- To make a specific numerical recom- employment decision is imminent, ed effort to take the world to zero mendation is to claim perfect knowl- the President will need to meet the nuclear weapons.7 The President edge of the future actions of U.S. foes, specific threat at hand. Of course, the outlined his vision in his April 2009 all scenarios that may require the U.S. will need to plan and construct speech in Prague.8 The 2010 Nuclear U.S. to employ nuclear weapons, and the required nuclear force well in Posture Review (NPR) Report listed a precise understanding of how stra- advance, anticipating a wide variety “Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear tegic defenses and conventional stra- of circumstances, not in response to weapons in U.S. national security tegic strike systems will influence a specific, imminent circumstance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Deterrence: Problems and Perspectives in the 1990'S UNIDIR/93/26
    Nuclear Deterrence: Problems and Perspectives in the 1990's UNIDIR/93/26 UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva Nuclear Deterrence: Problems and Perspectives in the 1990's Edited by Serge Sur UNITED NATIONS New York, 1993 NOTE 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. * * * The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. UNIDIR/93/26 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.93.0.16 ISBN 92-9045-084-3 UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research UNIDIR is an autonomous institution within the framework of the United Nations. It was established in 1980 by the General Assembly for the purpose of undertaking independent research on disarmament and related problems, particularly international security issues. The work of the Institute aims at: 1. Providing the international community with more diversified and complete data on problems relating to international security, the armaments race, and disarmament in all fields, particularly in the nuclear field, so as to facilitate progress, through negotiations, towards greater security for all States and toward the economic and social development of all peoples; 2. Promoting informed participation by all States in disarmament efforts; 3. Assisting ongoing negotiations in disarmament and continuing efforts to ensure greater international security at a progressively lower level of armaments, particularly nuclear armaments, by means of objective and factual studies and analyses; 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of MAD? Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press the Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy
    The End of MAD? The End of MAD? Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy For nearly half a cen- tury, the world’s most powerful nuclear-armed countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large, well- dispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the other’s nuclear forces in a ªrst strike. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack, the victim would al- ways be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe that the nuclear stale- mate helped prevent conºict between the superpowers during the Cold War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today.1 The age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis-à-vis its plausible great power adversar- ies. For the ªrst time in decades, it could conceivably disarm the long-range Keir A. Lieber, author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology, is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press, author of Calculating Cred- ibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. The authors thank Richard Betts, Stephen Brooks, Matthew Bunn, Geoff Forden, Charles Glaser, David Kang, Christopher Layne, George Lewis, Jennifer Lind, Daniel Lindley, Michael Mastanduno, John Mearsheimer, Robert Pape, Theodore Postol, Gideon Rose, Stephen Rosen, Anne Sa’adah, Alan Stam, Benjamin Valentino, and William Wohlforth for helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Nuclear Deterrence Postures in South Asia: an Overview
    UNCLASSIFIED MINIMUM NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POSTURES IN SOUTH ASIA: AN OVERVIEW FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2001 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ADVANCED SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTS OFFICE PREPARED BY: RODNEY W. JONES PPoollliiiccyy AArrcchhiiitteeccttss IIInntteerrnnaattiiioonnaalll RReessttoonn,,, VVAA 2200119911 The publication of this document does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of the sponsoring agency. 1 Table of Contents Summary of Key Findings ..............................................................................................................................2 I. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................5 II. Existing and Emerging Nuclear Force Capabilities ............................................................................................7 A. Asymmetries .....................................................................................................................................................7 B. Nuclear Weapon Inventories.............................................................................................................................8 C. Nuclear-Capable Delivery Systems ................................................................................................................13 D. Nuclear Force Structure..................................................................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • 04 Zafar Khan
    International Journal of Korean Unification Studies Vol. 25, No. 1, 2016, 95–128 China’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy and its Consistency with the Chinese Leadership’s Perception of Minimum Deterrence Zafar Khan China is one of the recognized nuclear weapons states since it first tested its nuclear capability in 1964. Amongst major ingredients of its evolving nuclear strategy, China has been consistent with its small number of deterrent forces, an official no-first use doctrinal option, and policy of assured retaliation. This article argues that although China modernizes some parts of its key deterrent capability to enhance the credibility of its force precision, ranges and penetrability, this may not be considered a dramatic transformation in Chinese nuclear strategy. Modernization, which enhances the credibility and survivability of China’s deterrence forces, is an essential part of minimum deterrence conceptualized here. However, the possible greater transformation within doctrinal option of no-first use, increase of its deterrent forces including that of tactical nuclear weapons, and rescinding its strategy of assured retaliation would become inconsistent with what is conceptualized here. Keywords: China’s nuclear strategy, the minimum means of reprisal, no- first use, essentials of minimum, Chinese strategic force modernization, Chinese conceptualization of minimum deterrence Introduction China became one of the five major and recognized nuclear weapons states after it successfully tested a nuclear device in 1964. The Chinese leadership developed a strong confidence in the small number of Chinese nuclear weapons. It is notable how China remained consistent in their adherence to the essentials of minimum deterrence that it conceptualized in the early days of its nuclear weapons development and how the Chinese founding leadership at the time of its nuclear 96 Zafar Khan weapons acquisition shaped Chinese nuclear policy architecture in the years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Deterrence and Its Critics
    Minimum Deterrence and its Critics Three things came to mind while writing “Remembrance of Things Past: The Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons.”1 First, the intent was to reinvigorate debate within the policy-making community regarding nu- clear weapons; second, to introduce the idea of minimum deterrence;2 and third, to sketch out a force structure suitable for the United States to achieve minimum deterrence. Judging from the attention the article re- ceived, we were successful in our first bid, less successful in the second, and largely unsuccessful in our third.3 Before addressing our critics, it is important to clarify the meaning of “minimum deterrence” and specify how the number 311 was derived. Minimum Deterrence Minimum deterrence is an argument about states, security, and nuclear weapons.4 It makes three assumptions. First, minimum deterrence as- sumes that all states strive to survive; all statesmen want a state to rule. Second, it assumes that nuclear weapons produce political effects; that is, they compel statesmen to behave cautiously in the face of grave danger. This cautiousness produces restraint, which shores up international stability. Third, minimum deterrence assumes that large arsenals buy statesmen little. As in other areas of competition, there comes a point of diminishing returns, and with nuclear weapons that point comes quickly. This pre- supposes that statesmen are not sensitive to the actual number of nuclear weapons a state may possess. The mere fact that a state may have a nuclear weapon or seek to acquire one is enough to condition them to act cau- tiously, even in times of crises.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of MAD? the End of MAD? Keir A
    The End of MAD? The End of MAD? Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy For nearly half a cen- tury, the world’s most powerful nuclear-armed countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large, well- dispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the other’s nuclear forces in a ªrst strike. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack, the victim would al- ways be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe that the nuclear stale- mate helped prevent conºict between the superpowers during the Cold War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today.1 The age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis-à-vis its plausible great power adversar- ies. For the ªrst time in decades, it could conceivably disarm the long-range Keir A. Lieber, author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology, is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press, author of Calculating Cred- ibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. The authors thank Richard Betts, Stephen Brooks, Matthew Bunn, Geoff Forden, Charles Glaser, David Kang, Christopher Layne, George Lewis, Jennifer Lind, Daniel Lindley, Michael Mastanduno, John Mearsheimer, Robert Pape, Theodore Postol, Gideon Rose, Stephen Rosen, Anne Sa’adah, Alan Stam, Benjamin Valentino, and William Wohlforth for helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture
    The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response. This pol- icy requires only a small highly survivable second-strike force and resilient nuclear command, control, and communications (C3). Five new strategic submarines (SSBNs) backed by a small reserve fleet of 40 strategic bombers would fully support the policy, which requires a robust capability to destroy a nuclear aggressor’s key elements of state control and sources of its power and wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Namrata-Review Essay.Pmd
    Review Essay The Essence of the South Asian Nuclear Debate Namrata Goswami Scott D. Sagan, Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons A Debate Renewed With New Sections on India and Pakistan, Terrorism, and Missile Defence (New York: W W Norton and Company, 2003). Rajesh M. Basrur, Minimum Deterrence and India’s National Security (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006). Sumit Ganguly and Devin T. Hagerty, Fearful Symmetry India- Pakistan Crises in the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Rajesh Rajgopalan, Second Strike Arguments about Nuclear War in South Asia (New Delhi: Penguin, Viking, 2005). Nuclear weapons burst into the world arena in 1945, with the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction was so near total that Japanese folklore and music ever since are replete with plays and songs of those two fatal days in the summer of 1945. The American guilt for engineering such unwarranted killings has been no less either. Ever since nuclear weapons have dominated the discourse on strategic studies, starting with the well known publication of Bernard Brodie’s much acclaimed book Absolute Weapon in 1946, scholars have been investigating various aspects of the subject from different perspectives, especially from the point of view of deterrence theory. Most of the literature on deterrence can be broadly categorised into two schools of thought: deterrence optimist school and the pessimist school. The scholars belonging to the first school broadly believe that nuclear deterrence works across cultures and different political systems. They argue that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Strategic Analysis, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Revising Nuclear Deterrence
    Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland Revising Nuclear Deterrence Alexei Arbatov Vladimir Dvorkin Research and technical support: Vladimir Evseev November 2005 CISSM School of Public Policy 4113 Van Munching Hall University of Maryland This paper was prepared as part of the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, with Phone: 301-405-7601 generous support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The Fax: 301-403-8107 views expressed in this paper are the authors’ own. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Acknowledgements The authors of this paper are grateful to the Center for International and Security Studies (CISSM) at the University of Maryland for initiating this study on the past, present and future of nuclear deterrence, and to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for supporting the work. Our special thanks go to John Steinbruner, who provided valuable intellectual guidance and comments on the subject of the paper, and to Nancy Gallagher for organizing our efficient interaction during the whole research period. We also greatly appreciate the organizational help and support of CISSM and Carnegie Moscow Center staff, as well as the comments and advice of all Russian and American experts who have read all or parts of the paper, or discussed with us its various details. At the same time, the authors bear full responsibility for the assumptions, theoretical analysis and practical proposals of the study. About the Authors Alexei Arbatov – Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Dr. Prof. Sc. (History); Director of the Center for International Security, Institute for World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) Russian Academy of Sciences; Scholar in Residence, Carnegie Moscow Center; former (1993-2003) deputy chair of the defense committee of Russian Parliament (State Duma), former member of Soviet delegation at START I talks (1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Revealed Preference and the Minimum Requirements of Nuclear Deterrence
    Revealed Preference and the Minimum Requirements of Nuclear Deterrence Dallas Boyd Abstract US national security policy features a striking inconsistency in its leaders’ tolerance for the risk of nuclear terrorism and nuclear war respec- tively. Policies concerning the former suggest an overwhelming aversion to the risk of a nuclear attack. By contrast, US offensive nuclear capabili- ties, which are configured for preemptive counterforce strikes, imply at least some tolerance for the risk of nuclear retaliation. Yet this retaliation could be many times more severe than an act of nuclear terrorism—an event that American leaders suggest is intolerable. A further inconsis- tency is that the conventional criteria for a successful first strike only account for an enemy’s constituted nuclear weapons. This differs from the standard that governs US counterterrorism policy, which holds that the mere possession of fissile material constitutes a nuclear capability. A more consistent nuclear doctrine would consider that any state capable of engineering a single nuclear detonation on American soil may be able to deter the United States. If internalized uniformly, this low damage tolerance could preclude many scenarios involving preemptive attacks, which in turn may cast doubt on the United States’ ability to exercise nuclear coercion. ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ ✵ More than 40 years ago, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy noted the existence of “an enormous gulf between what political leaders really think about nuclear weapons and what is assumed in complex cal- culations of relative ‘advantage’ in simulated strategic warfare.” He con- sidered analysts who spoke of “acceptable” damage running into the tens of millions of lives to inhabit an “unreal world.” In reality, Bundy be- lieved “a decision that would bring even one hydrogen bomb on one city of one’s own country would be recognized in advance as a catastrophic Dallas Boyd is a senior policy analyst, addressing nuclear weapons policy and counterterrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • The India-US Nuclear Deal and Its Implications for Indian Nuclear Capability
    The India-US Nuclear Deal and its Implications for Indian Nuclear Capability R.Rajaraman Emeritus Professor of Physics Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi Background On July 18, 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George Bush announced an agreement. Among other things it calls for India to identify and separate its nuclear facilities into civilian and military categories and place the former under international safeguards. In return the US would resume full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India, work with the US Congress to adjust US laws to enable such cooperation and persuade allies in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to lift their sanctions. The separation plan was negotiated and announced in March in New Delhi. It then remained to get the US Congress to pass the required legislation exempting India from nuclear sanctions and for the Nuclear Supplier Group countries to agree to do the same. Since then the desired legislation has been passed by the House of Reps. The relevant committee of the Senate has also approved of the Deal, which awaits a vote from the full senate at the time of writing Concerns about the Agreement : In India Even though the Agreement seems well on its way to being formally accepted (update this !!) by both sides, serious concerns have been expressed about the implications of the agreement. In India, the concern in some quarters was that the agreement tied down India’s hands in areas of nuclear energy, national security and foreign policy (eg. The Iran issue, nuclear testing..) Among the Indian Left, there was also generic concern about entering into deals with the US.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quirks of Nuclear Deterrence 293
    THE QUIRKS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 293 The Quirks of Nuclear Deterrence Andrew Brown and Lorna Arnold Abstract From 1945 to 1949 the USA was the world’s only nuclear power. Although the nuclear arsenal was overestimated both in terms of size and readiness by the US military in its war plans, atom bombs came to be seen as the essential counter to conventional Soviet forces. The USSR constructed its own bombs in turn, and for decades the analysis of nuclear deterrence was almost exclusively concerned with the two superpowers. In the twenty-first century, the nuclear world no longer displays that mirror-image symmetry and can now be viewed as unipolar, regional, multipolar or stateless. Nuclear deterrence that seemed such an established technical reality during the Cold War should be recognized as a psychological construct that depends on threat perception and cultural attitudes, as well as the values, rationality and strength of political leaders who themselves have to mediate between groups with vested economic or military interests. As the number of nuclear weapons states increases, the logic of nuclear deterrence becomes less obvious and it should not be casually invoked as a general security factor without regard to a specific context. Nuclear weapons have become emblems of geopolitical power under the guise of deterrence. We argue that nuclear deterrence is meaningless against extremist terrorists. Our survey of its quirks leads us to believe that nuclear deterrence is a far less foolproof and reliable global security mechanism than many assume. Keywords: Cold War, deterrence theory and evolution, nuclear deterrence, nuclear history, nuclear terrorists, nuclear weapons, regional nuclear rivals Deterrence is ubiquitous in the natural world, where potential preys employ a variety of defences against would-be predators.
    [Show full text]