DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction Nuclear futures: Western European options for nuclear risk reduction Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer & Stephen Young British American Security Information Council and the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), December 1998 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Chapter One: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Policy in Western Europe Chapter Two: The United Kingdom Chapter Three: France Chapter Four: Nuclear Co-operation Chapter Five: NATO Europe Chapter Six: Nuclear Risk Reduction in Western Europe Endnotes About the authors Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non-governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASIC’s Washington office. Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC. Previously, he worked for 20/20 Vision and for ACCESS: A Security Information Service. He has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a BA from Carleton College. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many people who pro-vided help of various kinds during the writing of this report. They include: Nicola Butler, for her inestimable assistance; Ambassador James Leonard, for his helpful comments on the report’s recommendations; Professors Paul Rogers and Patricia Chilton, for their comments on early drafts; Daniel Plesch, for his comments on the entire report; and Camille Grand, for his guidance and support in compiling the section on France. Special thanks to Lucy Amis and Tanya Padberg for excellent proofing and copy-editing work, and to Christine Kucia and Kate Joseph for advice and assistance on the layout and design of the report. Support This report was made possible by the generous support of W. Alton Jones Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the New-Land Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Air Base AFDRG Anglo-French Defence Research Group ASMP Air-Sol Moyenne Portée ASLP Air-Sol Longue Portée CD Conference on Disarmament CEA Commisariat a l’Énergie Atomique CFE Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CTBT Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty DGA Delegation Generale de l’Armement EIVRs Exchanges of Information by Visit and Report EU European Union HMS Her Majesty’s Ship IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICBM Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile ICJ International Court of Justice INF Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty JAIEG Joint Atomic Information Exchange Group JOWOGs Joint Working Groups MIRV Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicles MOA Memorandum of Agreement MoD UK Ministry of Defence MP Member of Parliament (UK) NAM Non-Aligned Movement NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NTM National Technical Means NPG Nuclear Planning Group (a NATO body) NPT Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or the Non- Proliferation Treaty NSAs Negative Security Assurances NWFZ Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe PALEN Préparation a la Limitation des Expérimentations Nucléaires PaSEN Programme de Simulation des Essais Nucléaires PrepCom Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2000 NPT Review Conference RAF Royal Air Force (UK) SNLE/NG Sous-marins Lanceurs d’Engins de la Nouvelle Génération SLBM Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile START Strategic Arms Reduction Talks SWPP SLBM Warhead Protection Program TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (an EU programme) TMS Thomson Marconi Sonar TNN Tête Nucléaire Nouvelle TNO Tête Nucléaire Océanique WEU Western European Union WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction Executive Summary The recent German-US debate over NATO’s policy allowing first-use of nuclear weapons highlights a growing split between nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon states in the Alliance. Despite this split, the political value attached to nuclear weapons in European security remains high. NATO still describes nuclear weapons as the “supreme guarantee” of Alliance security. While the number of nuclear weapons in Europe has declined, the nuclear actors in Western Europe – France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and NATO – have not yet changed their doctrines to reflect the new security environment. At the same time, there is no military threat to the continent and NATO’s conventional military capabilities far outweigh any potential enemy. Western Europe nations should pursue a risk reduction approach, decreasing the political and military value attached to nuclear weapons. Upcoming decision points – updating NATO’s strategic concept, due to be completed in 1999, and the 2000 Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – are key in determining what path Western Europe will take. Germany and Canada have called for a renewed discussion on the future role of nuclear weapons in NATO strategy. Germany announced that it will raise the issue in NATO Ministerial meetings. Under the previous Conservative government, the UK reduced its arsenal to one nuclear system: the Trident missile deployed on Trident nuclear submarines. When it came to power, the Labour government undertook a Strategic Defence Review that made substantial but not dramatic changes in Britain’s nuclear posture, including reducing the number of warheads on Trident missiles. However, Labour has abandoned its traditional support for unilateral disarmament, and seems unlikely to implement other positions it has recently endorsed, including no-first-use of nuclear weapons. To date, other than an increased transparency, Labour policies have shown little change from their Conservative predecessors. (See Chapter Two.) France is simultaneously reducing its nuclear arsenal and implementing major upgrades to its remaining systems. Strongly condemned for its 1995-1996 series of nuclear tests, France has endeavoured to improve its international standing. Its support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a positive sign; its proposal to create a European nuclear deterrent was less well received. (See Chapter Three.) Nuclear co-operation between France, the United States, and the United Kingdom is increasing. France and the UK initiated new bilateral working groups on nuclear issues, and France and the US recently signed an agreement increasing their co-operation. Without nuclear testing, stockpile stewardship will lead to even closer co-operation. (See Chapter Four.) NATO has sharply reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Western Europe. However, its doctrine is moving towards using nuclear weapons to counter the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. The US is pushing NATO to include out-of-area threats and “nonstate actors”, such as terrorist groups, as targets for nuclear weapons. (See Chapter Five.) However, current policies are harmful to Western security in several ways. First, they are an incentive to proliferators to acquire nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. As demonstrated by the Gulf War, Western conventional superiority provides the capability to overcome any potential threat. Second, rather than serving as a hedge against a Russian resurgence, reliance on nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of a renewed threat. Third, the status conferred to nuclear-weapon states was a major factor in the Indian decision to develop its arsenal; Pakistan felt compelled to follow suit. Fourth, the refusal to pursue nuclear disarmament, as agreed in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is leading more and more nations to question the value of that regime. Western European nations should undertake six steps to reduce the risks associated with nuclear weapons and to preserve the NPT. These are: 1. Commit to and take programmatic action towards the rapid elimination of nuclear weapons; 2. Reduce the alert status of nuclear weapons; 3. End the deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons and give up the option of wartime nuclear weapons use by non-nuclear-weapon states; 4. Halt first-use policies by France, the UK, and NATO; 5. Include commitments by France and the UK on the future of their nuclear arsenals in the START III context; 6. Initiate a European Co-operative Threat Reduction Programme. These steps outline a comprehensive nuclear risk reduction strategy for Western Europe. They are also important to safeguard and strengthen the NPT. The list begins with the most important and broadest steps, and proceeds to less far-reaching initiatives. Most importantly, the last five steps would all follow from a sincere undertaking of the first. (See Chapter Six) The six steps closely correspond to many of the crucial provisions in the New Agenda Coalition’s June 1998 declaration and 1998 UN First Committee resolution. That resolution (see Chapter1.3, p. 8, for a description) exposed a growing debate in NATO over the Alliance’s nuclear doctrine. That debate, between the nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon states, may be exposed during the discussions over the Alliance’s Strategic Concept (see Chapters 5.5-5.7). Not included in the list are the traditional, yet important, items on the nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament agenda. These include further progress on the bilateral START process, ratification and entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and agreement on a fissile material production cut-off treaty at the Conference on Disarmament. Russian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • B Crew Raf Marham 1982
    HEROES OF THE RAF FIRE SERVICE B CREW RAF MARHAM 1982 ITUATED ON THE EDGE of the fens in Norfolk, the airfield at Marham has its origins way back in the very beginnings of military aviation. Following construction in S 1915, it saw service as a Royal Flying Corps (RFC) aerodrome during the Great War, both as a home defence airfield and a flying training unit. In 1919 it was closed, but sixteen years later work started on construction of the RAF Station we know today. The airfield resumed operations in 1937 and flying continued throughout the Second World War, during which thousands of bombing missions were launched, and the Station was attacked several times by enemy aircraft. Despite only having grass strips for runways, the Wellingtons, Stirlings and Mosquitos operated with devastating effect, and during the latter stages of the conflict RAF Marham was a main operating base for elite 8 Group Pathfinder Force (PFF) Squadrons. After the war, having now had new concrete runways laid, Marham continued to operate in the role of a bomber station, and in 1956 became part of the RAF’s V-Bomber Force, operating Valiants and later Victors. Long after the other V-Bombers were retired, Marham still flew Victors in the air to air refuelling role until they were finally retired in October 1993. One aircraft that didn’t survive to that date however, was XL232. Following construction at the Handley Page factory at Radlett, near St Albans, it was delivered to the RAF on 13 March 1962 as a Victor B2 bomber, capable of delivering a Blue Steel nuclear stand-off missile, or up to 35 x 1000lb bombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Otfried Nassauer * 20
    Wir nehmen Abschied von unserem Freund, Kollegen und Mitstreiter Otfried Nassauer * 20. August 1956 † 1. Oktober 2020 Otfried Nassauer war seit 1991 Leiter des Berliner Informationszentrums für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS) und hat über viele Ländergrenzen hinweg tragfähige friedenspolitische Netzwerke aufgebaut. Als Experte für strategische Fragen, Waffensysteme und Rüstungskontrolle war er mit seinem fundierten Wissen ein äußerst gefragter Ratgeber der Friedensbewegung, der Medien, der Kirchen und der Politik, aber auch ein sehr respektierter Gesprächspartner von Vertretern der Bundeswehr. Großzügig stellte er sein umfassendes Wissen, seine Recherche-Ergebnisse und seine Artikel zur Verfügung, wenn es darum ging, in der Öffentlichkeit den Argumenten für Abrüstung und gegen weitere Aufrüstung und Krieg breiteres Gehör zu verschaffen. Sein profundes Detailwissen war immer hilfreich, aber auch herausfordernd und zum Weiterdenken anregend. Seine Erkenntnisse sind jahrzehntelang in unzählige fachwissenschaftliche und publizistische Beiträge eingeflossen. Für die Friedensbewegung war seine © Wolfang Borrs Arbeit von herausragender Bedeutung. Aus Otfrieds Studien und Untersuchungen ergaben sich oftmals konkrete friedenspolitische Forderungen und Aktionen. Das Ziel einer friedlicheren Welt spornte ihn in seinem Engagement an. Eine Johannes Ahlefeldt, Referent der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Berlin; Birgit und Michael Ahlmann, ex. BR-V, Blu- menschliche Welt ohne Krieg und Gewalt war für diesen herzensguten und wahr- menthal; Roland Appel,
    [Show full text]
  • Tailored Deterrence - a French Perspective
    50 TAILORED DETERRENCE - A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE Bruno TERTRAIS France is not at the forefront of the debate within NATO on the future of deterrence and retains a fairly conservative nuclear policy. However, the evolution of the French nuclear deterrent has been largely in tune with US and UK policies. Nuclear Deterrence With Smaller Arsenals Nuclear weapons will remain the ultimate guarantee of a nation’s survival for the foreseeable future. There is no alternative means of defense on the horizon which may threaten in a credible way the complete destruction of a State as a coherent entity, in just a few minutes. Conventional weapons could conveivably do the job, but only through repeated and multiple raids and with a lesser guarantee of success. Moreover, conventional weapons cannot instill in the adversary’s mind the very peculiar fear induced by nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are arguably as scary as nuclear ones - and perhaps even more so, in particu- lar for public opinion. But their use can be controlled only with difficulty. More importantly, they are not able to physically destroy government buildings, factories, command posts and arsenals. Unless perhaps deployed in space in very large numbers, strategic defenses will not be effective against a large number of missiles equipped with decoys and multiple warheads. Finally, threatening some particular hardened targets will continue to be possible only by nuclear means. But future deterrence will be ensured with smaller nuclear arse- nals. In the coming twenty years, Western nuclear stockpiles will continue *Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, France. 51 to be reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Air and Space Power Journal: Winter 2009
    SPINE AIR & SP A CE Winter 2009 Volume XXIII, No. 4 P OWER JOURN Directed Energy A Look to the Future Maj Gen David Scott, USAF Col David Robie, USAF A L , W Hybrid Warfare inter 2009 Something Old, Not Something New Hon. Robert Wilkie Preparing for Irregular Warfare The Future Ain’t What It Used to Be Col John D. Jogerst, USAF, Retired Achieving Balance Energy, Effectiveness, and Efficiency Col John B. Wissler, USAF US Nuclear Deterrence An Opportunity for President Obama to Lead by Example Group Capt Tim D. Q. Below, Royal Air Force 2009-4 Outside Cover.indd 1 10/27/09 8:54:50 AM SPINE Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Norton A. Schwartz Commander, Air Education and Training Command Gen Stephen R. Lorenz Commander, Air University Lt Gen Allen G. Peck http://www.af.mil Director, Air Force Research Institute Gen John A. Shaud, USAF, Retired Chief, Professional Journals Maj Darren K. Stanford Deputy Chief, Professional Journals Capt Lori Katowich Professional Staff http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor Darlene H. Barnes, Editorial Assistant Steven C. Garst, Director of Art and Production Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator L. Susan Fair, Illustrator Ann Bailey, Prepress Production Manager The Air and Space Power Journal (ISSN 1554-2505), Air Force Recurring Publication 10-1, published quarterly, is the professional journal of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for the http://www.au.af.mil presentation and stimulation of innovative thinking on military doctrine, strategy, force structure, readiness, and other matters of national defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity / Change: Rethinking Options for Trident Replacement
    CONTINUITY / CHANGE: RETHINKING OPTIONS FOR TRIDENT REPLACEMENT DR. NICK RITCHIE Dr. Nick Ritchie Department of Peace Studies BRADFORD DISARMAMENT RESEARCH CENTRE University of Bradford April 2009 DEPARTMENT OF PEACE STUDIES : UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD : JUNE 2010 About this report This report is part of a series of publications under the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre’s programme on Nuclear-Armed Britain: A Critical Examination of Trident Modernisation, Implications and Accountability. To find out more please visit www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/trident.html. Briefing 1: Trident: The Deal Isn’t Done – Serious Questions Remain Unanswered, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing1.html Briefing 2: Trident: What is it For? – Challenging the Relevance of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing2.html. Briefing 3: Trident and British Identity: Letting go of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing3.html. Briefing 4: A Regime on the Edge? How Replacing Trident Undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing4.html. Briefing 5: Stepping Down the Nuclear Ladder: Options for Trident on a Path to Zero, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing5.html. About the author Dr. Nick Ritchie is a Research Fellow at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. He is lead researcher on the Nuclear-Armed Britain programme. He previously worked for six years as a researcher at the Oxford Research Group on global security issues, in particular nuclear proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • Easter 1956.Pdf
    Cables: “Kitty Malta’* Telephones: Central 4028 * THE*STARS*CO. * Exclusive Bottlers In Malta and Gozo for The Kitty-Kola Co. Ltd., London 165/6 FLEUR-DE-LYS, BIRKIRKARA£MALTA Malta’s First-class Mineral Water Manufacturers OUR SPECIALITY—THE FOLLOWING SOFT DRINKS PINEAPPLE LEMONADE ORANGE GINGER BEER i f GRAPE FRUIT i f DRY GINGER i f STRAWBERRY TONIC WATER LIME JUICE SODA WATER Suppliers for N.A.A.F.I., Malta When you are serving in Malta, afloat or ashore, always call for ★ STAR’S* REFRESHERS * AND SEE THAT YOU GET THEM ********************************************* A JOB ASSURED BEFORE you leave the Services is encouraging. I SHORT BROTHERS HARLAN D* LIMITED have the jobs. Have you the qualifications ? ---------------------------------------------------- • W e need EN GIN EERS and TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS with University Degrees. National Certificates or the equivalent, for development work on aircraft, servo-mechanisms, guided missiles, auto-pilots and electronic and hydraulic research, in short, men qualified in mechanical or electrical engineering, mathematics, physics and with experience or an interest In aircraft and in related matters. To such as these we can offer a satisfactory career. If you are interested why not talk it over when you are on leave. Apply giving educational background to: STAFF APPOINTMENTS OFFICER, P.O. BO X 241, BELFAST, quoting S.A. 92. THE COMMUNICATOR 1 /»•<»#*I# in touch withm u r p h y ' I I Lo o L n - ~ _ J^ = > O /*=» <=* j O >V Our Admiralty Type 618 Marine Communications Equipment meets the needs of all kinds of ships. It consists of an M.F./H.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Proliferation: a Civilian and a Military Dilemma Nuclear Proliferation: a C Ivilian and a Military D Ilemma
    ilemma D NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: ivilian and a Military A CIVILIAN AND A MILITARY DILEMMA C A Nuclear Proliferation: The danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in proportion to weapons stockpiles, reversing Pyongyang’s nuclear buildup, and the number of new nuclear power stations all over the world. stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons-related activities. The hope There is no insurmountable division between the civil and mili- is that each of these efforts will be mutually reinforcing and tary use of this technology in spite of the efforts on the part of that progress in reducing existing nuclear weapons will per- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to regulate suade the world’s nonnuclear weapons states to do more to stay this. The most recent example is Iran. At the end of the day clear of dangerous civilian nuclear fuel-making activities. This anyone who does not want to be regulated cannot be forced to set of nuclear hopes, however, is unlikely to be fully realised. do so. With the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow- Barring regime change in either North Korea or Iran, neither ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast breeders in Pyongyang’s renunciation of its nuclear arsenal nor Iran’s ces- order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give rise to the circulation sation of nuclear weapons-related activities is all that probable. of plutonium leading in turn to the creation of huge amounts of Meanwhile, the odds of China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, fissile material capable of making bombs – a horror scenario! and Israel agreeing to nuclear warhead reductions seem even With the run-up to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) more remote.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)
    Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) m kg s cd SI mol K A NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Ambler Thompson Technology Services and Barry N. Taylor Physics Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition, April 1995) March 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology James M. Turner, Acting Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, April 1995 Edition) Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 811, 2008 Ed., 85 pages (March 2008; 2nd printing November 2008) CODEN: NSPUE3 Note on 2nd printing: This 2nd printing dated November 2008 of NIST SP811 corrects a number of minor typographical errors present in the 1st printing dated March 2008. Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Preface The International System of Units, universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), is the modern metric system of measurement. Long the dominant measurement system used in science, the SI is becoming the dominant measurement system used in international commerce. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of August 1988 [Public Law (PL) 100-418] changed the name of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and gave to NIST the added task of helping U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Warheads
    OObservatoire des armes nucléaires françaises The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons looks forward to the elimination of nuclear weapons in conformity with the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To that end, the Observatory disseminates follow-ups of information in the forms of pamphlets and entries on the World Wide Web: • on the evolution of French nuclear forces; • on the on-going dismantling of nuclear sites, weapons, production facilities, and research; • on waste management and environmental rehabilitation of sites; • on French policy regarding non-proliferation; • on international cooperation (NGO’s, international organizations, nations), toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; • on the evolution of the other nuclear powers’ arsenals. The Observatory of French Nuclear Weapons was created at the beginning of the year 2000 within the Center for Documentation and Research on Peace and Conflicts (CDRPC). It has received support from the W. Alton Jones Foundation and the Ploughshares Fund. C/o CDRPC, 187 montée de Choulans, F-69005 Lyon Tél. 04 78 36 93 03 • Fax 04 78 36 36 83 • e-mail : [email protected] Site Internet : www.obsarm.org Dépôt légal : mai 2001 - 1ère édition • édition anglaise : novembre 2001 ISBN 2-913374-12-3 © CDRPC/Observatoire des armes nucléaires françaises 187, montée de Choulans, 69005 Lyon (France) Table of contents The break-down of nuclear disarmament ....................................................................................................................................... 5 The
    [Show full text]
  • Collision Between Hms Relentless & Hms Vigilant
    COLLISION BETWEEN HMS RELENTLESS & HMS VIGILANT Throughout the evening and night of 26th / 27th October 1954, HMS RELENTLESS and HMS VIGILANT, both type 15 frigates, were conducting anti-submarine exercises as they made the transit south through the Minch Channel. The channel is between 20 and 45 miles wide and some 70 miles long and separates the Hebrides from the Scottish mainland. Today, the channel is a busy shipping lane carrying some 2.5 million tonnes of shipping each year. There is no reason to believe the channel was any less busy in 1954 in terms of the number of ships however, the gross tonnage would have been considerably less. At approximately 0415 on the 27th, in response to a signal from RELENTLESS, the VIGILANT was manoeuvring to be astern of RELENTLESS when the ships collided. RELENTLESS rammed VIGILANT on her port side taking out the Wardroom Pantry and a not inconsiderable amount of Wardroom and upper deck fittings. Fortunately, there were no injuries, other than to the pride of a number of people. The damage to the RELENTLESS’ bow section was substantial although both ships managed to make Greenock unaided. Both were dry docked and VIGILANT, once repaired was soon back at sea. RELENTLESS however, despite being made seaworthy, was put into refit in Chatham but in May 1955 was paid off into Category One Reserve. It is unclear from the newspaper reports which follow, how the collision actually happened but the fact that neither ship had navigation lights on may well have been a factor... The Glasgow Herald, Saturday December 4th 1954.
    [Show full text]
  • Chasing Success
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Chasing Success Air Force Efforts to Reduce Civilian Harm Sarah B. Sewall Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Sewall, Sarah B. Copy Editor Carolyn Burns Chasing success : Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm / Sarah B. Sewall. Cover Art, Book Design and Illustrations pages cm L. Susan Fair ISBN 978-1-58566-256-2 Composition and Prepress Production 1. Air power—United States—Government policy. Nedra O. Looney 2. United States. Air Force—Rules and practice. 3. Civilian war casualties—Prevention. 4. Civilian Print Preparation and Distribution Diane Clark war casualties—Government policy—United States. 5. Combatants and noncombatants (International law)—History. 6. War victims—Moral and ethical aspects. 7. Harm reduction—Government policy— United States. 8. United States—Military policy— Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. II. Title: Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm. UG633.S38 2015 358.4’03—dc23 2015026952 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Allen G. Peck Published by Air University Press in March 2016 Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ http://afri.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any AFRI other US government agency.
    [Show full text]
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998
    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
    [Show full text]