DOCSLIB.ORG

New Technologies and Nuclear Disarmament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Technologies and Nuclear Disarmament NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT Outlining a Way Forward tytti erästö STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Chan Heng Chee (Singapore) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France) Dr Radha Kumar (India) Ambassador Ramtane Lamamra (Algeria) Dr Patricia Lewis (Ireland/United Kingdom) Dr Jessica Tuchman Mathews (United States) Dr Feodor Voitolovsky (Russia) DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) hiroshima prefecture NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT Outlining a Way Forward tytti erästö May 2021 Contents Acknowledgements iv Summary v Abbreviations vi 1. Introduction 1 2. The nuclear deterrence paradigm: An enduring challenge to 3 disarmament I. ‘Transitional’ approach: Bridging the gap between deterrence and disarmament 3 II. Minimal deterrence: An interim step towards a nuclear weapon-free world 4 III. Increasing reliance on conventional deterrence 6 IV. The need for a more cooperative international society 8 3. New technologies and prospects for minimal nuclear deterrence in 10 Russia and the United States I. Conventional precision-strike: Alternative to nuclear weapons? 10 II. Missile defences: Obstacle to further cuts in strategic nuclear arsenals? 14 Box 3.1. The link between missile defence and nuclear arms control 15 Box 3.2. Non-kinetic weapons 16 4. The path to global zero 18 I. Strategic challenges to multilateral nuclear disarmament 18 II. The role of technology in maintaining a nuclear weapon-free world 20 5. Policy recommendations 21 6. Conclusions 24 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Hiroshima Prefectural Government for its generous funding of this paper. She is also indebted to several reviewers who provided valuable feedback on the report: external reviewers Professor Andrew Futter and Dmitry Stefanovich, as well as SIPRI colleagues, including Dr Ian Anthony, Dr Sibylle Bauer, Dr Lora Saalman, Dan Smith, Dr Petr Topychkanov, Pieter D. Wezeman and Robert E. Kelley. Dr Tytti Erästö Summary This report analyses the prospects for nuclear disarmament in light of recent military- technological advances, focusing on precision-strike weapons and missile defences. While many of the technologies employed in these advanced weapon systems cannot be described as new, their application to strategic military uses represents a more recent development whose impact on nuclear deterrence and, in particular, nuclear disarmament remains poorly understood. The report argues that the tension between deterrence and disarmament can be bridged through a ‘transitional approach’ which acknowledges both the urgent need for progress towards a nuclear weapon-free world and the security-related challenges in its way. It views the resumption of bilateral arms control between Russia and the United States as the most important step towards disarmament at the present moment, as a broader process involving all nuclear-armed states is hardly possible with out prior and significant reductions in the largest nuclear weapon arsenals. To enable such reductions, these two countries should move away from their cold-war era nuclear doctrines that seek an ability to win a nuclear war. Instead, they should pursue a policy of ‘minimal nuclear deterrence’ focused on deterring a nuclear attack. If these two countries were to adopt such a policy—and, ideally, also make a nuclear no-first-use (NFU) pledge—this would constitute a crucial intermediate goal towards comprehensive nuclear disarmament. Although disarmament ultimately means giving up nuclear deterrence, the inter- mediate goal of minimal nuclear deterrence would not require consensus on the feasibility of the end goal of nuclear abolition. Instead, the shared goal of nuclear risk reduction might be a sufficient motivation for Russia and the USA to embark on significant nuclear weapon reductions. They could begin such cuts by removing nuclear weapons from regional conflict dynamics, meaning that they would no longer serve as a deterrent against con- ventional aggression. Such a change—which could involve a ban on non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe—would not undermine regional deterrence. This move, the report argues, would not undermine regional deterrence, as each side already has robust conventional forces comprised of precision-strike weapons and other advanced mili tary systems. Together with the abandonment of cold war-era nuclear doctrines focused on extensive counter-force targeting, this would open the door for signifi cant reductions of nuclear stockpiles. Such progress, however, would be complicated by current challenges to strategic stability posed by US missile defences and long-range precision-strike weapons, notably hypersonic weapons. These systems have raised the bar for credible nuclear deterrence by creating uncertainty about US adversaries’ second-strike capabilities. To address this problem, the report proposes treaty-based limits on strategic missile defences and strengthened international norms against both nuclear and con ventional aggres sion, in particular against preventive war. Together with a clear stigma against nuclear weapons, such measures could also pave the way for the kind of systemic change that is required for further progress towards a nuclear weapon-free world. Abbreviations ABM Treaty 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ASAT anti-satellite C3 command, control and communications CPGS Conventional Prompt Global Strike GBI ground-based interceptor ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile INF Treaty 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty MDR Missile Defense Review NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization New START 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms NFU no first use NPR Nuclear Posture Review NPT 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons RMA Revolution in Military Affairs SALT Strategic Arms Limitations Talks SDI Strategic Defense Initiative SLBM submarine-launched ballistic missile START I 1991 Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms TPNW 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons WMD weapons of mass destruction 1. Introduction Much of the current analysis on the impact of ongoing technological evolution on nuclear deterrence is driven by concerns about strategic stability. Reflecting the view that this impact is predominantly negative, the attribute ‘disruptive’ is often used to refer to new kinds of destabilizing weapons, or to technologies that poten tially enable their development.1 While specific weapons types are sometimes iden tified as representing new technologies, the issue is perhaps best understood in terms of a general trend towards greater precision, speed, manoeuvrability, stealth and tracking capabil ities of contemporary military systems, as well as non-kinetic means of attack, notably in the cyber realm.2 This trend poses a challenge to strategic stability.3 More specifically, new technologies may create ‘crisis instability’ through their potential to increase the risk of nuclear escalation, for example through miscalculation and the entanglement of nuclear and conventional weapons.4 A related problem is that—insofar as they are able to destroy hardened and concealed targets—modern conventional systems could be used to forcefully disarm an adversary.5 Together with improvements in strategic defences that could neutralize the effects of retaliatory strikes, these emerging capabil- ities are weakening deterrence by undermining nuclear-armed states’ confidence in their ability to launch a retaliatory second strike.6 By driving nuclear-armed states to engage in new armament dynamics to preserve their second-strike capability, new tech nologies are thus also undermining ‘arms race stability’: the other key pillar of strategic stability. Focusing in particular on the latter aspect of strategic stability, this report analyses the pitfalls and possibilities that such weakening of deterrence presents for nuclear dis- armament. On the one hand, it starts from the assumption that the arms race instability created by new technologies will likely complicate efforts to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles. Illustrative of the pitfalls, China and Russia have already responded to the emerging United States’ strategic capabilities by reinforcing their nuclear arsenals in an effort to maintain mutual deterrence. On the other hand, the report considers the possi bilities for harnessing the current military-technological evolution to facilitate dis armament, notably by exploring the idea of substi tuting nuclear deterrence with conventional deterrence. 1 Roberts, B., ‘Emerging and disruptive technologies, multi-domain complexity, and strategic stability: A review and assessment of the literature’, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Center for Global Security Research, Feb. 2021. 2 Futter, A., ‘The risks posed by emerging technologies to nuclear deterrence’, eds B. Unal, Y. Afina and P. Lewis, Perspectives on nuclear deterrence in the 21st century, Chatham House Research Paper (Royal Institute of International Affairs: London, Apr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Assessment of Nuclear Deterrence Requirements Committee
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–11] MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 8, 2017 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24–683 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETO O’ROURKE, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SAM GRAVES, Missouri A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEPHANIE N.
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Strategy Insights from Wargames
    Competitive Strategy Insights from Wargames Competitive Strategy Insights from Wargames BENJAMIN JENSEN JOHN T. WATTS CHRISTIAN TROTTI MARK J. MASSA ATLANTIC COUNCIL 1 Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Forward Defense Forward Defense helps the United States and its allies and partners contend with great-power competitors and maintain favorable balances of power. This new practice area in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security produces Forward-looking analyses of the trends, technologies, and concepts that will define the future of warfare, and the alliances needed for the 21st century. Through the futures we forecast, the scenarios we wargame, and the analyses we produce, Forward Defense develops actionable strategies and policies for deterrence and defense, while shaping US and allied operational concepts and the role of defense industry in addressing the most significant military challenges at the heart of great-power competition. This publication was produced in support of Army Futures Command as part of a project that used competitive strat- egy wargames to evaluate alternative long-term military investment strategies for great-power competition. Competitive Strategy Insights from Wargames BENJAMIN JENSEN · JOHN T. WATTS · CHRISTIAN TROTTI · MARK J. MASSA ISBN-13: 978-1-61977-121-5 Cover image: Army AH-64 Apache aircrews conduct formation practice at Camp Williams, Utah, June 5, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme
    Publications and Reports The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme A Summary Report by The Ministry of Defence on the Role of Historical Accounting for Fissile Material in the Nuclear Disarmament Process, and on Plutonium for the United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Programme Introduction 1. The Government is committed to transparency and openness about the defence nuclear programme when compatible with continuing national security requirements and the United Kingdom’s international obligations under Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Government is also committed to work towards the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons As the Strategic Defence Review stated, eliminating nuclear weapons will require States which have had nuclear programmes outside international safeguards to account for the fissile material that they have produced. This contributes to the process of nuclear disarmament by developing confidence that as States reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons, they have not retained concealed stocks of fissile material outside international supervision with which to construct clandestine nuclear weapons. Such accounting was crucial to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s initial verification of the comprehensive safeguards agreement signed by South Africa when it eliminated its nuclear weapons programme and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State. The United States has produced a comprehensive report on its production of plutonium for defence purposes, and is working on a similar study on its production of High Enriched Uranium. 2. It is important not to overestimate the contribution such historical accounting can make to the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 2D Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–582 "!
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±582 "! PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3144, THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996 MAY 16, 1996.ÐReferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 438] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 438, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION The rule provides for consideration in the House with two hours of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking mi- nority member of the Committee on National Security. The rule waives all points or order against the bill and against its consider- ation. The rule also makes in order without intervention of any point of order one minority amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Spratt or his designee and which is printed in this report. The rule provides that the substitute shall be debatable separately for one hour divided equally between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. THE AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SPRATT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OR A DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 1 HOUR Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1996''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: 29±008 2 (1) Short-range theater ballistic missiles threaten United States Armed Forces wherever engaged abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
    ; Democratic People's Republic ofKorea PERMANENT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS 820 Second Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, N.V: 1001.7 Tel: (212) 972-3105/3106 Fax: (212) 972-3154 Press Release Please Check against Delivery STATEMENT BY H.E. Mr. PAKKIL YON VICE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AT THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT OF THE 68th UN GENERALASSEMBLY NEW YORK, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 Mr. President, First ofall, on behalf ofthe delegation ofthe Democratic People's Republic ofKorea (DPRK), I would like to congratulate you for your assumption of the important duty as the president of this session. Furthermore, I am confident that under your able leadership, this meeting will be a significant occasion in the United Nation's endeavors for nuclear disarmament. Mr. President, Prevention of nuclear arms race and realization of the world free from nuclear weapons through nuclear disarmament is becoming a pressing task in ensuring peace and security of the world. 45 years ago, nuclear powers made a commitment to nuclear disarmament through the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) and ~hey put obligations on non-nuclear weapon states to use atomic power for peaceful purposes only. These commitments for nuclear disarmament were reconfirmed in 1995 when the NPT was extended for indefinite period without any amendments and through "Thirteen Action Plan for Nuclear Disarmament" which was taken at the NPT Review Conference in 2000. However, notwithstanding this, there is a tendency in which. priority is being given to non-proliferation, rather than nuclear disarmament. Under .the pretext of nuclear disarmament, development of new types of nuclear weapons of enhanced capability are constantly pushed ahead and furthermore maneuvers to conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide on Nuclear Disarmament for Religious Leaders
    RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. — J. Robert Oppenheimer, Director of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atom bomb, quoting the Bhagavad Gita as he witnessed the atom bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945 When scientific power outruns spiritual power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men. — Martin Luther King, Jr. Inside cover: Baker Test, Marshall Islands, July 25, 1946. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense. CATASTROPHIC IMPACT OF NUCLEAR TESTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Now we have this problem of what we call “jelly-fish babies.” These babies are born like jelly-fish. They have no eyes. They have no heads. They have no arms. They have no legs. They do not shape like human beings at all. When they die they are buried right away. A lot of times they don’t allow the mother to see this kind of baby because she will go crazy. It is too inhumane. — Darlene Keju-Johnson, Director of Family Planning 1987–1992, Marshall Islands, on the impact of U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Religions for Peace (RfP) would like to express its gratitude and appreciation to the Norwegian Min- istry of Foreign Affairs and Rissho Kosei-Kai for their years of generous support and partnership in RfP’s education and advocacy program to mobilize religious leaders and their constituencies around a credible, cohesive and bold advocacy and action agenda for peace and shared security, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstan Missile Chronology
    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology Last update: May 2010 As of May 2010, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Kazakhstan Missile Overview. This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2009-1947 March 2009 On 4 March 2009, Kazakhstan signed a contract to purchase S-300 air defense missile systems from Russia. According to Ministry of Defense officials, Kazakhstan plans to purchase 10 batteries of S-300PS by 2011. Kazakhstan's Air Defense Commander Aleksandr Sorokin mentioned, however, that the 10 batteries would still not be enough to shield all the most vital" facilities designated earlier by a presidential decree. The export version of S- 300PS (NATO designation SA-10C Grumble) has a maximum range of 75 km and can hit targets moving at up to 1200 m/s at a minimum altitude of 25 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit-V Topic-2 Strategy of Deterrence
    UNIT-V TOPIC-1 NUCLEAR ERA IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON STRATEGY A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on targets often in settled territory far from the battlefield as part of a strategic plan, such as military bases,military command centers, arms industries, transportation, economic, and energy infrastructure, and heavily populated areas such as cities and towns, which often contain such targets.It is in contrast to a tactical nuclear weapon, which is designed for use in battle as part of an attack with and often near friendly conventional forces, possibly on contested friendly territory. How have nuclear weapons changed world politics? The nuclear powers gained the ability to use “threat of n-weapons” for securing their national interests in international relations. ... During 1945-90 the nuclear weapons influenced the politics of cold war. These kept the securing of disarmament and arms control highly complex and problematic and un-successful exercise. In some ways, nuclear weapons merely made effective the earlier promise of air power—overwhelming violence delivered at an opponent’s cities, bypassing its military forces. Nuclear weapons were different, however, in their speed, their destructiveness, and the apparent absence of countervailing measures. Furthermore, the expense and high technology of nuclear weapons suddenly created two classes of powers in the world: those who wielded these new tools of war and those who did not. In the ensuing decades, nuclear facts and nuclear strategy had a peculiarly uneasy coexistence. Many of the realities of nuclear weapons—how many were in each arsenal, the precise means for their delivery, the reliability of the devices themselves and of the planes, missiles, and crews that had to deliver them—were obscure.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process
    NW ear Weapons Tare ‘eting Proeess unitstatesed General Accounting Office GAO Wtihington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-244436 September 27,199l The Honorable John McCain United States Senate The Honorable John R. Kasich House of Representatives This is the unclassified version of the classified fact sheet we provided you in August 1991. This responds to your request for an unclassified description of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) process for formulating its strategic nuclear weapons targeting policy and translating that policy into a nuclear war plan -the Single Integrated Operational Plan (sop). Our description includes information on (1) the relationship between the strategic nuclear targeting process and the determination of require- ments for nuclear weapons and related delivery systems, (2) the level of civilian oversight, and (3) the categories and types of targets. These strategic nuclear weapons systems, commonly known as the triad, include land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine- launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers armed with nuclear bombs and missiles. Results in Brief The strategic nuclear weapons targeting process consists of four steps: (1) Presidential direction for the employment of nuclear weapons is pro- vided to the Secretary of Defense through a National Security Decision Directive or Memorandum, which defines national security objectives and sets policy guidance concerning employment of U.S. nuclear weapons. (2) The Secretary of Defense issues the Policy Guidance for the Employ- l ment of Nuclear Weapons, which establishes the planning assumptions, attack options, and targeting objectives. (3) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff develops more detailed guidance for preparation of the SIOP based on guidance from the Presi- dent and Secretary of Defense.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agenda for Arms Control Negotiations After the Moscow Treaty
    The Agenda for Arms Control Negotiations After the Moscow Treaty PONARS Policy Memo 278 Nikolai Sokov Monterey Institute of International Studies October 2002 Ratification of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, or the Moscow Treaty), signed by Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush on May 24, 2002, is all but certain. Critics in both capitals have apparently been proven wrong—it turned out to be possible to break with three decades of arms control experience and traditions and to sign a treaty that almost completely lacks substantive provisions; even those that are included into the treaty cannot be efficiently verified. In contrast, this treaty exemplifies the Bush administration’s assertion that the United States and Russia no longer need complicated treaties that impose many restrictions on the maintenance, operation, and modernization of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals. Optimism about near unlimited flexibility, which the new treaty grants both sides, seems misguided, however. Although traditional concerns about a “bolt out of the blue” first strike have no place in the existing environment, both sides still need the reassurance and mutual trust that only a robust transparency regime could provide. Both sides have already proclaimed their intention to pursue further negotiations: the United States appears to favor the exchange of data whereas Russia seems more interested in measures that would limit the uploading capability of the United States. Either way, at issue is the predictability of the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship. The stable cooperative relations between the United States and Russia offer an opportunity that should not be missed. The two sides feel reasonably safe vis-à-vis one another and can afford approaching transparency negotiations without undue haste.
    [Show full text]