DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring the Nuclear Posture Implications of Extended Deterrence and Assurance Workshop Proceedings and Key Takeaways

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Exploring the Nuclear Posture Implications of Extended Deterrence and Assurance Workshop Proceedings and Key Takeaways project director Clark A. Murdock principal authors Clark A. Murdock Jessica M. Yeats contributing authors Linton F. Brooks M. Elaine Bunn Franklin C. Miller James L. Schoff project staff Tara Murphy L. Christian Pearson John K. Warden November 2009 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2009 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data CIP Information available on request. ISBN 978-0-89206-598-1 Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 7 II. EXTENDED DETERRENCE & ASSURANCE AT THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL ............................................... 10 III. DETERRING POTENTIAL AGGRESSORS OF U.S. ALLIES: REQUIREMENTS & KEY FACTORS ...................................................................................................... 16 IV. ASSURING ALLIES: REQUIREMENTS & KEY FACTORS ....................................................................... 23 V. EUROPE ............................................................................................................................................. 34 VI. NORTHEAST ASIA ............................................................................................................................. 44 VII. MIDDLE EAST ................................................................................................................................... 55 VIII. LONG TERM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES .......................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX A: ON SELF RESOLVE .............................................................................................................. 69 APPENDIX B: PROTECTED COUNTRIES ...................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP BRIEFS ............................................................................................................. 72 APPENDIX D: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX E: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 106 Blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The emerging North Korean and Iranian nuclear capabilities, coupled with ongoing Chinese and Russian strategic modernization programs, have brought increased attention from both practitioners and strategists to extended deterrence (the so-called ‘U.S. nuclear umbrella’) and the role it plays in assurance (the ability of the United States to convince its allies that it is committed to protecting their security). Despite a decade-long reassessment of deterrence in the policy community, there is still not a consensus among policy experts on the precise meaning of deterrence and associated concepts. Nevertheless, by analyzing the differences with which each critical ‘audience’ perceives and interprets U.S. force posture, the following report demonstrates that the nuclear posture requirements for deterrence, extended deterrence, and assurance are largely additive and cumulative, despite some fungibility between them. Extended Deterrence and Assurance at the Conceptual Level To be able to extend deterrence requires that we can deter our allies’ adversaries; assurance requires that allies believe that we can and will do so. The credibility of deterrence and extended deterrence is a function of the perceptual lens of potential aggressors against the United States or its allies (the deterree), whereas the credibility of assurance is a function of the lens through which the state under the umbrella (the assuree) perceives and interprets U.S. capabilities and actions vis-à-vis the deteree. If the deterrent is not credible, assurance will not work, but a credible deterrent does not guarantee successful assurance. While neither extended deterrence nor assurance is a ‘lesser-included case’ of the other, the credibility of both relationships is highly symbiotic. Moreover, from a practical perspective, the United States cannot ‘target’ the perception of a single adversary or ally without simultaneously shaping the perceptions of other audiences. The credibility of extended deterrence and assurance are in the eyes of three beholders: (1) U.S. allies and security partners; (2) potential aggressors against the United States or its allies; (3) the American public, the U.S. Congress, the military, and U.S. government officials. The perceptions of the ‘third audience’ are critically important to the credibility of both extended deterrence and assurance. U.S. policymakers must remember that they are speaking to all three audiences at the same time. Since there is no agreed-upon, direct way to assess the impacts of changes in the U.S. nuclear posture upon the effectiveness of deterrence or assurance, this report takes a credibility-centric approach. Although still subjective, the impact of changes in the U.S. nuclear posture on the credibility of its deterrence and assurance commitments can be assessed: analyzing adversaries to determine what shapes their behavior, engaging allies to understand what affects their trust, and asking ourselves if we really mean what we say and if our actions will live up to our words. The credibility of deterrence and extended deterrence depends on a spectrum of factors affecting adversary perceptions of U.S. capabilities and intentions. To some extent, intent and capability are fungible. Overwhelming capabilities can compensate for perceived weakness in the deterrer’s resolve, and strong resolve can substitute for a lack of capability (e.g., ‘asymmetries of stakes’ can flip the deterrence calculus in favor of the regional aggressor, depending on the action to be deterred). Perceived U.S. interests in what is to be defended and the ‘balance of stakes’ vis-à-vis the potential aggressor are 1│NUCLEAR POSTURE IMPLICATIONS OF EXTENDED DETERRENCE AND ASSURANCE particularly important to adversary perceptions of U.S. intent to defend against aggression on allied territory. Within this typology, a number of capabilities blur the distinction between ‘intent’ and ‘capability.’ Effective defenses, for example, enhance deterrence credibility by demonstrating invulnerability to reprisal, thus rendering irrelevant otherwise salient questions about whether the United States has the resolve, for example, to trade Atlanta for Riyadh. Linton Brooks suggests the following approach, which this report uses, for assessing the capability implications of extended deterrence: [The] inherent force structure needs [of extended deterrence] are…U.S. strategic forces that are perceived as second to none…flexible…reliable and effective…and by effective defenses…[But the] force structure bottom line [is]: except for these inherent features, [the] U.S. should wean allies from the belief that a specific force structure is required for extended deterrence. Assurance requires the state under the umbrella to be sufficiently convinced of U.S. extended deterrence commitments so it can (a) resist intimidation and (b) refrain from seeking its own nuclear capabilities (if it has the ability to do so). Accordingly, three principal factors explain why the requirements for assuring an ally can be distinct from (and, in some cases, greater than) the requirements for deterring the ally’s potential aggressors. First, the degree to which assurance is affected by the elements of extended deterrence is a function of how the ally perceives and interprets U.S. words and actions vis-à-vis the deteree. Because allies’ defense planners may rely on less credible and/or open-source intelligence and have more limited analytic resources for assessing the implications of nuclear posture changes, certain allies can be particularly
Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Deterrence in the Information Age?

    Nuclear Deterrence in the Information Age?

    SUMMER 2012 Vol. 6, No. 2 Commentary Our Brick Moon William H. Gerstenmaier Chasing Its Tail: Nuclear Deterrence in the Information Age? Stephen J. Cimbala Fiscal Fetters: The Economic Imperatives of National Security in a Time of Austerity Mark Duckenfield Summer 2012 Summer US Extended Deterrence: How Much Strategic Force Is Too Little? David J. Trachtenberg The Common Sense of Small Nuclear Arsenals James Wood Forsyth Jr. Forging an Indian Partnership Capt Craig H. Neuman II, USAF Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Norton A. Schwartz Mission Statement Commander, Air Education and Training Command Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ) is the senior United States Air Force– Gen Edward A. Rice Jr. sponsored journal fostering intellectual enrichment for national and Commander and President, Air University international security professionals. SSQ provides a forum for critically Lt Gen David S. Fadok examining, informing, and debating national and international security Director, Air Force Research Institute matters. Contributions to SSQ will explore strategic issues of current and Gen John A. Shaud, PhD, USAF, Retired continuing interest to the US Air Force, the larger defense community, and our international partners. Editorial Staff Col W. Michael Guillot, USAF, Retired, Editor CAPT Jerry L. Gantt, USNR, Retired, Content Editor Disclaimer Nedra O. Looney, Prepress Production Manager Betty R. Littlejohn, Editorial Assistant The views and opinions expressed or implied in the SSQ are those of the Sherry C. Terrell, Editorial Assistant authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, Air Education Editorial Advisors and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or depart- Gen John A.
  • NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

    NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

    NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament: Challenges for the for 10th and Disarmament: Challenges Conference NPT Review Non-proliferation of Nuclear and the Frameworks NATO Research Paper Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina International Security Programme | May 2020 NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Challenges for the 10th NPT Review Conference Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina with Yasmin Caughley, Tim Chatham House Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Background 5 3 NATO and the NPT 8 4 NATO: the NPT and the TPNW 15 5 NATO and the TPNW: Legal Issues 20 6 Conclusions 24 About the Authors 28 Acknowledgments 29 1 | Chatham House NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Summary • The 10th five-yearly Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT) was due to take place in April–May 2020, but has been postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • In force since 1970 and with 191 states parties, the NPT is hailed as the cornerstone of a rules-based international arms control and non-proliferation regime, and an essential basis for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. But successive review conferences have been riven by disagreement between the five nuclear weapon states and many non-nuclear weapon states over the appropriate way to implement the treaty’s nuclear disarmament pillar. • Although the number of nuclear weapons committed to NATO defence has been reduced by over 90 per cent since the depths of the Cold War, NATO nuclear weapon states, and their allies that depend on the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence for their own defence, favour continued retention of the remaining nuclear weapons until the international security situation is conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament.
  • The Cuban Missile Crisis

    The Cuban Missile Crisis

    The Hungry Mind Lab 2016 Materials for imQ Project The Cuban Missile Crisis The Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over Soviet ballistic missiles deployed in Cuba that took place between October 16 and October 28 in 1962. Information about the Cuban Missile Crisis was broadcast on television worldwide, and it was the one event in history that brought the Cold War closest to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war. Following from the enmity between the United States and the Soviet Union since the end of World War II in 1945, the United States was concerned about the rise of Communism, and a Latin American country allying openly with the USSR, short for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was unacceptable. In addition, the United States had recently suffered a public embarrassment, because of the failed invasion at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 under President John F. Kennedy. The invasion had been attempted by a group known as Brigade 2506 that consisted of 1400 paramilitaries, who had been trained and funded by the United States government's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Launched from Guatemala on 17 April 1961, the Brigade 2506 had intended to land at the Bay of Pigs and to overthrow Cuba's increasingly communist government but it was defeated within three days by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces, who were under the direct command of Cuba's Prime Minister Fidel Castro. After the events at the Bay of Pigs, the former American President Eisenhower told Kennedy that now the Soviets were "embolden to do something that they would otherwise not do." Indeed, the failed invasion created the impression with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev and his advisers that Kennedy was indecisive and, as one Soviet adviser wrote about Kennedy: "too young, intellectual, not prepared well for decision making in crisis situations ..
  • Considerations Bearing on a Possible Retraction of the American Nuclear Umbrella Over the ROK

    Considerations Bearing on a Possible Retraction of the American Nuclear Umbrella Over the ROK

    Considerations Bearing on a Possible Retraction of the American Nuclear Umbrella Over the ROK Patrick Morgan Thomas and Elizabeth Tierney Chair in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of California, Irvine This paper was produced as part of the project “Improving Regional Security and Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula: U.S. Policy Interests and Options.” This paper was produced as part of the project “Improving Regional Security and Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula: U.S. Policy Interests and Options.” Considerations Bearing on a Possible Retraction of the American Nuclear Umbrella Over the ROK American extended nuclear deterrence has, for some years, performed a number of functions in Northeast Asia. Any detailed list would have to include the following: 1) Protecting the ROK, via deterrence, from another huge and very destructive conventional war. It was the Eisenhower administration that initially announced that a nuclear response would be likely for another war like the one in Korea, and made plans and nuclear weapons deployments accordingly. That threat has never been abandoned as the US has never adopted a no-first-use posture on nuclear weapons. What it did do, after the Cold War, was to remove its nuclear weapons stored in the ROK and all nuclear weapons, except on SLBMs, from its ships at sea. 2) Compensating the ROK for not developing nuclear weapons and huge conventional forces with an attack orientation. The US-ROK alliance was meant by Washington to provide a degree of control, of restraint, on the ROK to prevent it from starting or provoking a war. This was a serious concern from the start of the alliance, in the Syngman Rhee era, (and dated back to before the the Korean War).
  • The Gravest Danger: Nuclear Weapons

    The Gravest Danger: Nuclear Weapons

    Hoover Press : Drell/Nuclear Weapons DP0 HDRENW0200 rev2 page 29 II. Looking Forward The Security Environment of the Future If a cascade of events leading to the injection of nuclear weapons into regional conflicts around the world is any- where near being a plausible scenario, what would the security environment look like? • Greater availability of nuclear weapons for terrorists means that borders should be made entry-proof for any illicit cargo. But the war on drugs has shown this to be impossible. More intrusive police and intelligence activities would become necessary. The USA Patriot Act, and its implementation by the Bush administra- tion’s Justice Department, is a foretaste of things to come. The effects of this on civil liberties, and on the free flow of merchandise and travel by ordinary citi- zens, and, indeed, the effects on all normal aspects of life in the United States and elsewhere are incalculable, and potentially enormously harmful. Quite apart from the societal impact on democratic nations around the world, the economic effects are likely to be damaging, as the events following September 11, 2001, demon- strated. • Nuclear crises in sensitive areas in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia will be more frequent, requiring both diplomacy and resort to military force Hoover Press : Drell/Nuclear Weapons DP0 HDRENW0200 rev2 page 30 30 looking forward to defuse. The Iraqi conflict and the India-Pakistan confrontation are examples of what can be expected. • More calls will be heard for the U.S. military to respond to incipient nuclear programs through preventive or preemptive war, or to deploy forces to terminate local conflicts or to support a threatened friendly nation.
  • Utredning Av Konsekvenserna Av Ett Svenskt Tillträde Till Konventionen Om Förbud Mot Kärnvapen

    Utredning Av Konsekvenserna Av Ett Svenskt Tillträde Till Konventionen Om Förbud Mot Kärnvapen

    Utredning av konsekvenserna av ett svenskt tillträde till konventionen om förbud mot kärnvapen Inquiry into the consequences of a Swedish accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Executive summary Points of departure The Treaty on tHe Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), has now been open for signature and ratification for more than one year. As can be seen from the Inquiry’s terms of reference, tHe issue it Has been asked to address is how accession to the Treaty would impact on Swedish interests in a number of wider contexts. THese relate to Sweden’s non-proliferation and disarmament policy and to Swedish security and defence policy more broadly, including its bilateral and multilateral cooperative formats. Another issue concerns the prob- lems of implementing the Treaty in Sweden. Broad scope evaluation over time To perform an evaluation, tHere is a need to look up to see the Treaty in context, look down to track how it may affect the day to day management of crises and be applied in concrete cases of negotiations, look back at lessons learned and look ahead to the requirements of a world without nuclear weap- ons and in the step-by-step process towards tHis final stage. Seeing the Treaty in context makes the impact assessment a complex task. Partly, this is an issue of the current content of the Treaty as de- scribed in tHe Annex and of its direct and indirect impact on Sweden. But the impact of the Treaty also has to be evaluated over time. The question then arises what Sweden can do to promote conditions for 35 Executive summary a Treaty in support of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation without having serious negative side effects.
  • A Common Deterrent for a United Europe?

    A Common Deterrent for a United Europe?

    Ulla JASPER Universität St Gallen, Switzerland Dr Clara PORTELA Singapore Management University, Singapore A Common Deterrent for a United Europe? Revisiting European Nuclear Discourse Work in Progress ‐ please do not quote Paper presented at the EUSA Biannual Convention 2009 Abstract Nuclear weapons remain the unquestioned core of the defence postures of France and the United Kingdom. At the same time, the European Union is progressively enhancing its common foreign and security posture, notably through the establishment of a European Security and Defence Policy. Yet, despite evident progress in the CFSP, whose ultimate purpose is to lead to a “common defence policy”, EU member states still deal with nuclear issues on a strictly national basis. Our paper seeks to contrast the progress of EU‐integration with the continuance of national nuclear deterrence in Europe by analysing how this is presented in European public discourse. How is the raison d’être of the French and British nuclear deterrents conceptualised, and how is nuclear proliferation by the so‐called ʺrogue statesʺ portrayed? The paper inquires about the construction of the rationale of the French and British nuclear forces and in particular their compatibility with the emerging European defence policy. What is the alleged purpose of European nuclear forces in European defence? Could and should a “European nuclear deterrent” be envisaged as the final stage in the ongoing framing of a European defence? Introduction In the past few years, nuclear non‐proliferation has developed into a key issue on the foreign policy agenda of the European Union (EU). This heightened attention marks a sharp contrast to Cold War times, when Western Europe tackled nuclear issues largely within in the framework of the Atlantic Alliance.
  • Security Guarantees and Nuclear Non-Proliferation

    Security Guarantees and Nuclear Non-Proliferation

    note n°14/11 BRUNO TERTRAIS Maître de Recherche à la Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique Security Guarantees and Nuclear Non-Proliferation The purpose of this paper is to discuss the value potentially involving the use of nuclear weapons of “security guarantees”, that is, positive security to protect an ally, have played a very important assurances that include a formal or informal de- role in preventing proliferation. They exist in fense commitment, in preventing nuclear prolif- various forms, from unilateral statements to for- eration. It will demonstrate that such guarantees mal alliances backed by permanent military de- have proven to be a very effective instrument in ployments 1. In many cases, during the Cold war, preventing States from going nuclear. It would security guarantees were made manifest and thus seem logical to reinforce or extend them. tangible by the presence of nuclear weapons. However, this path is fraught with obstacles and This was the case in NATO, but also for some dilemmas. time in Japan and Taiwan. Security Guarantees as a Critical The North Atlantic Organization Treaty (NATO) Non-proliferation Tool has played the role of a non-proliferation instru- ment. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (1949) Security guarantees by a nuclear-armed State, creates an obligation to assist any member State victim of an armed attack. This article has been Israel (total: 32). widely interpreted as implying the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States, the United Kingdom and France in defense of their The importance of positive security assurances allies. NATO’s non-proliferation role is not lim- in preventing proliferation can be demonstrated ited to Article 5.
  • Toward a Nuclear Middle East

    Toward a Nuclear Middle East

    Toward a Nuclear Middle East Yoel Guzansky and Ron Tira In recent years, the Iranian nuclear project has been at the center of the world’s attention and has motivated other states to take the nuclear path. Indeed, countries from Turkey and Saudi Arabia to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates are developing nuclear infrastructure and know-how without a possible military dimension (PMD) as far as we know. Of course, Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons could accelerate these processes and increase the incentive to give these projects a military dimension. While significant research has focused on the nuclearization of Iran and the threat it poses, less attention has been given to the formation of a multipolar regional nuclear system, the inherent risks, and the challenges involved in maintaining nuclear balance. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the risks inherent in a multipolar regional nuclear system; to review the current nuclear situation in the Middle East; to recognize the accelerating and inhibiting factors in the region’s nuclearization; to identify possible trends of nuclearization that have military dimension; and to recommend an Israeli strategy to counter this threat. Background: The Implications of a Multipolar Regional Nuclear System In the absence of precedents for a multipolar, regional nuclear system, any analysis is inherently challenging. Moreover, it is unlikely that the theories and concepts that developed about the nuclear issue during and following The writers would like to thank Dr. Ephraim Asculai, Mr. Yahel Arnon, Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun, Dr. Ofir Winter, Col. (res.) Itamar Yaar, Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss, and Prof.
  • Opportunities and Risks of European Self-Defence

    Opportunities and Risks of European Self-Defence

    SWP Research Paper Eckhard Lübkemeier Standing on Our Own Feet? Opportunities and Risks of European Self-Defence Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs SWP Research Paper 1 February 2021, Berlin Abstract Only a Europe that provides for its own defence can be a fully sovereign Europe. As is the case for the US, Europe would have to be capable of ∎ protecting its core security interests without depending on its transatlan- tic partner. Structural incentives as well as recent developments militate in favour of establishing such intra-NATO status parity. Structurally, unilateral ∎ dependence, even among friends, comes at a price. This timeless incentive is reinforced by recent developments: the demise of the old West, with or without Trump; China’s twofold challenge; an emerging Sino-American rivalry; a resurgent Russia; the new world disorder; Macron’s offer to his European partners. European self-defence has to meet four key requirements: broader and greater European integration, sufficient military capabilities, effective ∎ strategy, and political leadership. Defence autonomy requires an independent nuclear deterrent capability. In the case of the EU, neither primary deterrence, reserved for a single ∎ state, nor extended deterrence, such as that provided by the United States, would be adequate. Instead, Europe would have to create a novel type of “integrated deter- rence”. Underpinned by a solid community of solidarity and trust, this ∎ would be based on French nuclear forces, with the French president main- taining exclusive decision-making authority. Germany and France would have to seize the initiative by “taking their bi- lateral relations to a new level”, as stated in the Aachen Treaty of January ∎ 22, 2019.
  • Download the Transcript

    Download the Transcript

    DETERRENCE-2019/04/24 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION FALK AUDITORIUM THE FUTURE OF U.S. EXTENDED DETERRENCE Washington, D.C. Wednesday, April 24, 2018 Keynote Speaker: DAVID J. TRACHTENBERG Deputy Undersecretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense Panelists: FRANK ROSE, Moderator Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution ELAINE BUNN Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy U.S. Department of Defense KATHLEEN HICKS Senior Vice President, Henry A. Kissinger Chair and Director, International Security Program, CSIS JON WOLFSTHAL Director, Nuclear Crisis Group; Senior Advisor, Global Zero * * * * * ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 DETERRENCE-2019/04/24 2 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. ROSE: Good morning and welcome to the Brookings Institution. My name is Frank Rose and I'm a senior fellow here at Brookings. Thanks for joining us for this morning's program on the future of U.S. extended deterrence. We have a great program this morning to explore a very important, but extremely complicated National Security issue. Our program this morning will consist of two parts. First, we'll kick-off the event with a keynote address by David Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, who will outline the Trump administration's approach to extended deterrence. Secretary Trachtenberg's address will be followed by a panel discussion with three distinguished experts in the field to explore the issues in greater detail. On that note, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to welcome Mr.
  • 07 Zafar Khan

    07 Zafar Khan

    International Journal of Korean Unification Studies Vol. 24, No. 3, 2015, 181–216 North Korea’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy under the Pretext of Minimum Deterrence: Implications for the Korean Peninsula Zafar Khan Little is known about North Korea’s nuclear strategy. It is shrouded with greater ambiguity, which plays a central role in its nuclear weapons program. In the absence of North Korea’s policy document and institu- tionalization of its nuclear policy, it is not clear what nuclear strategy North Korea would opt for and why. Therefore, one expects many speculative interpretations on the evolving nuclear strategy of North Korea. This article attempts to predict under the conceptual essentials of minimum deterrence that North Korea would follow minimum deterrence. But under the pretext of minimum deterrence, it would have multiple options to opt for one or more types of nuclear strate- gies. However, each of these nuclear strategies would have strategic implications for North Korea in general and the Korean Peninsula in particular. Keywords: North Korea, essentials of minimum deterrence, nuclear strategy, ROK-U.S., Korean Peninsula Introduction Along with a factor of regime survival, North Korea went nuclear to deter the security threats Pyongyang thinks emanate from the U.S. and its nuclear security guarantee to South Korea. Security factor for North Korea going nuclear remains a predominant factor. In the early 1950s, Kim II-sung stated, “Although the U.S. is threatening our country with nuclear bombs, it does not affect our people’s will to fight the U.S. for retaining freedom and independence.”1 Pyongyang 182 Zafar Khan North Korea’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy under the Pretext of Minimum Deterrence 183 also considers the U.S.