DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Asia–And Only Asia–Contains States with the Full NPT Defector State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Asia–And Only Asia–Contains States with the Full NPT Defector State paradigm_shift Summer 2017-18 Summer Edition 02 Edition nuclear A publication produced by produced A publication asia the Pacific & of Asia ANU College paradigm_shift Summer 2017-18 Summer Edition 02 Edition nuclear A publication produced by produced A publication asia the Pacific & of Asia ANU College ANU College of Asia & the Pacific HC Coombs Building #9 The Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601 Australia T 1800 620 032 E [email protected] W asiapacific.anu.edu.au ANUasiapacific ANUasiapacific anu_asiapacific ANU College of Asia & the Pacific CRICOS Provider #00120C 01 Professor Michael Wesley 10 Dr Stephan Frühling A new arms race in Asia Missiles and missile defence 02 Professor Ramesh Thakur 11 Associate Professor Matthew Sussex Asia in the second nuclear age Russia and nuclear instability in Asia 03 Adjunct Associate Professor Ron Huisken 12 Distinguished Professor Amin Saikal China and nuclear proliferation: the case of North Korea Iran and Saudi Arabia: proliferation pressures 04 Dr Brendan Taylor and Dr H. D. P. Envall 13 Dr Tanya Ogilvie-White A nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia? Responding to the nuclear crisis in Northeast Asia: the dangers of nuclear fatalism 05 Dr Michael Clarke Multipolar Asia, strategic 14 John Tilemann stability and nuclear deterrence: toward life in the Institutional tools for curbing ‘grey zone’? nuclear threats in Asia Pacific 06 Associate Professor O. Fiona Yap 15 Professor Ramesh Thakur Domestic drivers of proliferation The UN Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty 07 Dr Benjamin Zala 16 Dr Richard Brabin-Smith Nuclear balances and the challenge of advanced Nuclear risk in Asia: conventional weapons in Asia how Australia should respond 08 Dr Leonid Petrov 17 Professor Gareth Evans North Korean nuclear program Nuclear disarmament: and the continuing Korean War the global challenge 09 Professor Rory Medcalf Submerged risk - the undersea dimension of Asia’s nuclear contest The Australian National University does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented here are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University, its staff, or its trustees. 01 Summer 2017/18 Professor Michael Wesley Professor Michael Wesley is Professor of Thirty years ago, the American and Soviet International Affairs and Dean of ANU College of presidents signed the Intermediate-Range Asia & the Pacific. He has published on foreign Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the first bilateral policy, international relations and state-building nuclear disarmament agreement between the interventions. Previously, Professor Wesley two superpowers since the start of the Cold War. A new arms race in Asia was Director of the Coral Bell School of Asia The treaty would commit them to scrap an entire Pacific Affairs within the College. Prior to this, class of nuclear weapons from their arsenals. It he led the Lowy Institute for International was a moment when much of the world breathed Policy as Executive Director from 2009–2012. a sigh of relief at the prospect of a possible end to the “delicate balance of terror” that had existed since the 1950s. Each superpower possessed more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy all life on the planet, and had for decades lived under a regime of mutually- assured destruction (MAD), acknowledging that its only defence against its opponent’s nuclear weapons was the ability to threaten complete destruction in retaliation if attacked. It had been a world seemingly a heartbeat away from ending due to either sudden escalation or error. Continues on next page Professor Michael Wesley Michael Professor For the past decade, the world has looked to the Asia Pacific as the new centre of dynamism in the global economy. This collection shows this optimistic view of the region needs to be tempered with sustained attention to more sobering trends associated with increasingly destructive rivalries in Asia and the Pacific. A new arms race in Asia 02 01 paradigm_shift — Edition 02 Summer 2017-18 The decades that followed the INF Treaty provocations have concentrated attention on seemingly continued the positive trend. The several developments that have been unfolding 1990s began with the end of the Cold War and over the past decades which, taken together, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and continued place the world closer to a possible nuclear with the denuclearisation of South Africa, the exchange than at any time since the end of the negotiation of new treaties banning nuclear Cold War. In their essays, Leonid Petrov and testing, chemical weapons, trade in fissile Ron Huisken provide vital insights into North material, and the extension of the nuclear Korea’s motivations, demonstrating clearly why Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). More sobering we should not have been surprised by its flurry counter-trends were the breakthrough to nuclear of nuclear and missile tests in recent months. status of India and Pakistan and tensions over While the Cold War was a global stand-off nuclear programs in Iraq and North Korea. The between two superpowers located on separate following decade saw attention shift towards continents, the new nuclear dynamics are terrorism, despite confrontations over Iran and driven by six established and new nuclear North Korea’s nuclear enrichment and missile powers and are predominantly concentrated development programs. Nothing seemed in the Asian region. As essays by Michael more unlikely than a nuclear exchange during Clarke and Brendan Taylor and H. D. P. Envall America’s “unipolar moment”. In 2009, a new in this collection note, this makes the current American President, Barack Obama, committed situation arguably much more unpredictable to seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. and dangerous. Geographic proximity, hyper- Nuclear war steadily receded as a threat in the sonic speeds and new detection capabilities consciousness of most people as the twenty-first all have the effect of collapsing reaction times, century moved into its second decade. Terrorism substantially raising the risks of miscalculation remained a preoccupation, while climate change and over-reaction. And while our attention is caused mounting anxiety. Tensions again rose rightfully on two sub-regions–Northeast Asia over Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, and South Asia–we should not be blind to but arguably both countries were seen more proliferation pressures in Central and West Asia. as rogue states than genuine disturbances Taken together, there are several trends that to the nuclear order. By mid-2017, the United have been apparent over many years that should Nations General Assembly had voted for a Wesley Michael Professor place the dangers of new nuclear rivalry in Asia Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty (NWPT). at the very forefront of policy deliberation and Against this background, North Korea’s public discussion. Most obviously, the numbers seemingly sudden and certainly determined and quality of nuclear weapons are increasing sprint towards gaining nuclear-tipped, as established and new nuclear weapons states intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2016 and modernise and upgrade existing nuclear 2017 has come as a sudden shock. Like a flash stockpiles, build more nuclear warheads, and of lightening on a dark night, Pyongyang’s develop more sophisticated missiles and missile The Cold War was a global stand-off between two superpowers located on separate continents, the new nuclear dynamics are driven by six established and new nuclear powers and are predominantly concentrated in the Asian region. 03 ANU College of Asia & the Pacific A new arms race in Asia 04 01 paradigm_shift — Edition 02 Summer 2017-18 defence systems. A separate but related trend Surveying the landscape of Asia’s “second This collection of essays draws on the is that the number of nuclear weapons states nuclear age”, Ramesh Thakur focuses on is steadily growing, all the while increasing dangerously eroding boundaries between collective expertise and experience of scholars the incentives for other states in Asia to nuclear and conventional weapons, tactical develop their own nuclear capabilities. As and strategic nuclear weapons, and the in the Australian National University’s College essays by Benjamin Zala, Rory Medcalf and nuclear, cyber and space domains. As the US, Stephan Frühling in this collection show, rapid Russia, China and now newer nuclear states of Asia & the Pacific. This institution and its technological developments in non-nuclear discard their political commitment to mutual predecessors have produced, over decades, weapons systems have also introduced new deterrence, acquiring new means to target sources of rivalry and destabilisation into the each other’s nuclear systems, the temptations some of the most respected analyses of mix, raising further incentives to increase to consider pre-emptive strikes are rising. the number, quality and variety of nuclear nuclear strategy and arms control, and today Tanya Ogilvie-White argues in her essay that weapons at hand. As many of the essays point an equally worrying trend is the spread of out, technological change has slipped the bonds the College boasts a breadth and depth of what she calls “nuclear fatalism”–the belief of either arms control regimes or deterrent that arms control is increasingly quixotic and knowledge and insight that few institutions in doctrines and is rapidly outpacing both. that only deterrent responses are adequate in Consequently, nuclear, conventional and the current climate of rising rivalry. Richard the world can rival. unconventional weapons technologies are Brabin-Smith shows that Australia is both both the results and the drivers of increasingly deeply implicated in and profoundly affected complex rivalries in Asia. As Clarke and by the new nuclear and missile dynamics Taylor and Envall demonstrate, it is no longer unfolding to its north. Clearly these dynamics possible to think in terms of bilateral stand- must become central to Australian defence and forefront of public or policy consciousness. We should not forget that nuclear weapons offs between nuclear-armed opponents. The foreign policy planning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report: the New Nuclear Arms Race
    The New Nuclear Arms Race The Outlook for Avoiding Catastrophe August 2020 By Akshai Vikram Akshai Vikram is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at Ploughshares Fund, where he focuses on U.S. nuclear policy. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Akshai previously worked as an opposition researcher for the Democratic National Committee and a campaign staffer for the Kentucky Democratic Party. He has written on U.S. nuclear policy and U.S.-Iran relations for outlets such as Inkstick Media, The National Interest, Defense One, and the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft. Akshai holds an M.A. in International Economics and American Foreign Policy from the Johns Hopkins University SAIS as well as a B.A. in International Studies and Political Science from Johns Hopkins Baltimore. On a good day, he speaks Spanish, French, and Persian proficiently. Acknowledgements This report was made possible by the strong support I received from the entire Ploughshares Fund network throughout my fellowship. Ploughshares Fund alumni Will Saetren, Geoff Wilson, and Catherine Killough were extremely kind in offering early advice on the report. From the Washington, D.C. office, Mary Kaszynski and Zack Brown offered many helpful edits and suggestions, while Joe Cirincione, Michelle Dover, and John Carl Baker provided much- needed encouragement and support throughout the process. From the San Francisco office, Will Lowry, Derek Zender, and Delfin Vigil were The New Nuclear Arms Race instrumental in finalizing this report. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their help. I would especially like to thank Tom Collina. Tom reviewed numerous drafts of this report, never The Outlook for Avoiding running out of patience or constructive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear War: President Reagan's Program
    The Center for Defense Infomliansupports a strong eelens* but opposes e-xces- s~eexpenditures or forces It tetiev~Dial strong social, economic and political structures conifflaute equally w national security and are essential to the strength and welfareof our country - @ 1982 CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION-WASHINGTON, D.C. 1.S.S.N. #0195-6450 Volume X, Number 8 PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR: PRESIDENT REAGAN'S PROGRAM Defense Monitor in Brief President Reagan and his advisors appear to be preparing the United States for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. President Reagan plans to spend $222 Billion in the next six years in an effort to achieve the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war. The U.S. has about 30,000 nuclear weapons today. The U.S. plans to build 17,000 new nuclear weapons in the next decade. Technological advances in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and changes in nuclear war planning are major factors in the weapons build-up and make nuclear war more likely. Development of new U.S. nuclear weapons like the MX missile create the impression in the U.S., Europe, and the Soviet Union that the U.S.is buildinga nuclear force todestroy the Soviet nuclear arsenal in a preemptive attack. Some of the U.S. weapons being developed may require the abrogation of existing arms control treaties such as the ABM Treaty and Outer Space Treaty, and make any future agreements to restrain the growth of nuclear weapons more difficult to achieve. Nuclear "superiority" loses its meaning when the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian-A(Merican) Bomb: the Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project
    J. Undergrad. Sci. 3: 103-108 (Summer 1996) History of Science The Russian-A(merican) Bomb: The Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project MICHAEL I. SCHWARTZ physicists and project coordinators ought to be analyzed so as to achieve an understanding of the project itself, and given the circumstances and problems of the project, just how Introduction successful those scientists could have been. Third and fi- nally, the role that espionage played will be analyzed, in- There was no “Russian” atomic bomb. There only vestigating the various pieces of information handed over was an American one, masterfully discovered by by Soviet spies and its overall usefulness and contribution Soviet spies.”1 to the bomb project. This claim echoes a new theme in Russia regarding Soviet Nuclear Physics—Pre-World War II the Soviet atomic bomb project that has arisen since the democratic revolution of the 1990s. The release of the KGB As aforementioned, Paul Josephson believes that by (Commissariat for State Security) documents regarding the the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Soviet sci- role that espionage played in the Soviet atomic bomb project entists had the technical capability to embark upon an atom- has raised new questions about one of the most remark- ics weapons program. He cites the significant contributions able and rapid scientific developments in history. Despite made by Soviet physicists to the growing international study both the advanced state of Soviet nuclear physics in the of the nucleus, including the 1932 splitting of the lithium atom years leading up to World War II and reported scientific by proton bombardment,7 Igor Kurchatov’s 1935 discovery achievements of the actual Soviet atomic bomb project, of the isomerism of artificially radioactive atoms, and the strong evidence will be provided that suggests that the So- fact that L.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear-Backed "Little Green Men"
    REPORT THE POLISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Nuclear-Backed “Little Green Men:” Nuclear Messaging in the Ukraine Crisis POLSKI INSTYTUT SPRAW MIĘDZYNARODOWYCH PISM THE POLISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The Polish Institute of InternationalAffairs (PISM) is a leading Central European think tank that positions itself between the world of politics and independent analysis.PISM provides analytical support to decision-makers, initiates public debate and disseminates expert knowledge about contemporary international relations. The work of PISM is guided by the conviction that the decision-making process in international relations should be based on knowledge that comes from reliable and valid research.The Institute carries out its own WARSAW research,cooperates on international research projects,prepares reports and analyses and collaborates with institutions with a similar profile worldwide. JULY 2015 POLSKI INSTYTUT SPRAW MIĘDZYNARODOWYCH AUTHOR:JACEK DURKALEC THE POLISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS UL.WARECKA 1A, 00-950 WARSZAWA ISBN 978-83-64895-45-6 (epub) TEL. (+48) 22 556 80 00, FAX (+48) 22 556 80 99 ISBN 978-83-64895-46-3 (mobi) [email protected], WWW.PISM.PL ISBN 978-83-64895-47-0 (pdf) THE POLISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Nuclear-Backed “Little Green Men:” Nuclear Messaging in the Ukraine Crisis Author: Jacek Durkalec Warsaw, July 2015 © Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, 2015 Copy editor Brien Barnett Technical editor and cover designer Dorota Dołęgowska This study was commissioned by the Nuclear Security Project (NSP) of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). The views expressed in this report are entirely the author’s own and not those of the Nuclear Security Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the Cold War
    Timeline of the Cold War 1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin - the 'Big Three' Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army in Berlin July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into four zones of occupation. August 6: The United States drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima (20 kiloton bomb 'Little Boy' kills 80,000) August 8: Russia declares war on Japan August 9: The United States drops atomic bomb on Nagasaki (22 kiloton 'Fat Man' kills 70,000) August 14 : Japanese surrender End of World War II August 15: Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day 1946 February 9: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible March 5 : "Sinews of Peace" Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill - "an "iron curtain" has descended on Europe" March 10: Truman demands Russia leave Iran July 1: Operation Crossroads with Test Able was the first public demonstration of America's atomic arsenal July 25: America's Test Baker - underwater explosion 1947 Containment March 12 : Truman Doctrine - Truman declares active role in Greek Civil War June : Marshall Plan is announced setting a precedent for helping countries combat poverty, disease and malnutrition September 2: Rio Pact - U.S. meet 19 Latin American countries and created a security zone around the hemisphere 1948 Containment February 25 : Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia March 2: Truman's Loyalty Program created to catch Cold War
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear (In)Security in the Everyday: Peace Campers As Everyday
    SDI0010.1177/0967010618762595Security DialogueEschle 762595research-article2018 Article Security Dialogue 2018, Vol. 49(4) 289 –305 Nuclear (in)security in the © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: everyday: Peace campers as sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010618762595DOI: 10.1177/0967010618762595 everyday security practitioners journals.sagepub.com/home/sdi Catherine Eschle University of Strathclyde, UK Abstract This article extends the emergent focus on ‘the everyday’ in critical security studies to the topic of nuclear (in)security, through an empirical study of anti-nuclear peace activists understood as ‘everyday security practitioners’. In the first part of the article, I elaborate on the notion of everyday security practitioners, drawing particularly on feminist scholarship, while in the second I apply this framework to a case study of Faslane Peace Camp in Scotland. I show that campers emphasize the everyday insecurities of people living close to the state’s nuclear weapons, the blurred boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and the inevitability of insecurity in daily life. Moreover, campers’ security practices confront the everyday reproduction of nuclear weapons and prefigure alternative modes of everyday life. In so doing, I argue, they offer a distinctive challenge to dominant deterrence discourse, one that is not only politically significant, but also expands understanding of the everyday in critical security studies. Keywords Anti-nuclear, critical security studies, the everyday, (in)security, feminism, peace movement Introduction This article explores the possibilities for rethinking nuclear (in)security in light of recent efforts to bring ‘the everyday’ into critical security studies. It does so with a feminist-informed analysis of the discourses and practices of anti-nuclear activists in one protest site, Faslane Peace Camp.
    [Show full text]
  • When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L
    When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L. Glaser Dangerous? Rational versus Suboptimal Arming Are arms races dan- gerous? This basic international relations question has received extensive at- tention.1 A large quantitative empirical literature addresses the consequences of arms races by focusing on whether they correlate with war, but remains divided on the answer.2 The theoretical literature falls into opposing camps: (1) arms races are driven by the security dilemma, are explained by the rational spiral model, and decrease security, or (2) arms races are driven by revisionist adversaries, explained by the deterrence model, and increase security.3 These Charles L. Glaser is a Professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the Uni- versity of Chicago. For their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, the author would like to thank James Fearon, Michael Freeman, Lloyd Gruber, Chaim Kaufmann, John Schuessler, Stephen Walt, the anonymous reviewers for International Security, and participants in seminars at the Program on In- ternational Security Policy at the University of Chicago, the Program on International Political Economy and Security at the University of Chicago, the John M. Olin Institute at Harvard Univer- sity, and the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia. He also thanks John Schuessler for valuable research assistance. 1. The pioneering study is Samuel P. Huntington, “Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results,” Public Policy, Vol. 8 (1958), pp. 41–86. Historical treatments include Paul Kennedy, “Arms-Races and the Causes of War, 1850–1945,” in Kennedy, Strategy and Diplomacy, 1870–1945 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); and Grant T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kiwi That Roared: Nuclear-Free New Zealand in a Nuclear-Armed World
    Wade Huntley THE KIWI THAT ROARED: NUCLEAR-FREE NEW ZEALAND IN A NUCLEAR-ARMED WORLD by Wade Huntley Dr. Wade Huntley is Program Director for Asia/Pacific Security at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development in Berkeley, California, where he produces the Northeast Asian Peace and Security Network’s Daily Report (www.nautilus.org). He has an article in the March 1996 issue of International Studies Quarterly and is working on a book based on his doctoral dissertation, “The Citizen and the Sword: Security and Democracy in the Liberal State.” The University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation provided support for research on this article. n July 14, 1984, New policy was widely criticized as a evance to larger democracies, is that Zealand elected its fourth frivolous moral exercise indulging a mass public is ill-suited to make O Labour government and vocal anti-nuclear activists and play- wise and prudent decisions regard- thus brought into effect its policy de- ing on an impassioned and unin- ing state security. Recent research claring the country “nuclear free,” formed public, while needlessly on this subject indicates that popu- which included prohibiting port entry jeopardizing the country’s national lar opinion is not as volatile and in- by any ships either under nuclear interests and sacrificing its ANZUS coherent, nor its effects on security power or carrying nuclear weapons.1 alliance relationship with the United policy as pernicious, as once The government’s commitment to States.3 This judgment is rooted in thought. However, many of these this policy reached a moment of truth two converging claims.
    [Show full text]
  • North Korean Decisionmaking
    C O R P O R A T I O N JOHN V. PARACHINI, SCOTT W. HAROLD, GIAN GENTILE, DEREK GROSSMAN, LEAH HEEJIN KIM, LOGAN MA, MICHAEL J. MAZARR, LINDA ROBINSON North Korean Decisionmaking Economic Opening, Conventional Deterrence Breakdown, and Nuclear Use For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA165-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0553-1 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Discerning the decisionmaking of Kim Jong-Un and the North Korean regime on issues of peaceful engagement and warlike actions endures as a mighty challenge for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities
    Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Jim Zanotti, Coordinator Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Jeremiah Gertler Specialist in Military Aviation Steven A. Hildreth Specialist in Missile Defense March 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42443 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Summary Several published reports indicate that top Israeli decisionmakers now are seriously considering whether to order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if so, when. Twice in Israel’s history, it has conducted air strikes aimed at halting or delaying what Israeli policymakers believed to be efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by a Middle Eastern state—destroying Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and a facility the Israelis identified as a reactor under construction in Syria in 2007. Today, Israeli officials generally view the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable threat to Israeli security—with some viewing it as an existential threat. This report analyzes key factors that may influence current Israeli political decisions relating to a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. These include, but are not limited to, the views of and relationships among Israeli leaders; the views of the Israeli public; U.S., regional, and international stances and responses as perceived and anticipated by Israel; Israeli estimates of the potential effectiveness and risks of a possible strike; and responses Israeli leaders anticipate from Iran and Iranian-allied actors—including Hezbollah and Hamas—regionally and internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • Breakthrough Emerging New Thinking EDITORS - in - CHIEF Anatoly Gromyko • Martin Hellman
    Breakthrough Emerging New Thinking EDITORS - IN - CHIEF Anatoly Gromyko • Martin Hellman EXECUTIVE EDITORS Craig Barnes • Alexander Nikitin SENIOR EDITORS Donald Fitton • Sergei Kapitza Elena Loshchenkova • William McGlashan Andrei Melville • Harold Sandler ONLINE EDITOR Olivia Simantob Breakthrough Emerging New Thinking Soviet and Western Scholars Issue a Challenge to Build a World Beyond War Walker and Company 720 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10019 Breakthrough/Poriv Copyright © 1988 by Beyond War Foundation A note about the online version of Breakthrough: the publisher grants permission for any or all of the book to be used for non-profit, educational purposes only. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocyping, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in the United States of America in 1988 by the Walker Publishing Company, Inc. Published simultaneousely in Canada by Thomas Allen & Son, Canada, Limited, Markham, Ontario. Published online in 2001. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Title Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking Includes references. 1. Nuclear arms control. 2. Security, International. 3. International relations. I. Gromyko, Anatolii Andreevich. II. Hellman, Martin E. JX 1974.7.B678 1988 327.1-74 87-23009 Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking ISBN 0-8027-1026-3 ISBN 0-8027-1015-8 Printed in the United States of America 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Published simultaneousely in the Soviet Union by Progress Publishing Company, Moscow. Dedication To our children and grandchildren Contents Acknowledgements x Preface: A Messgae to the Scientific Community xi Sergei P.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]