Us Nuclear Deterrence Policy Do We Have It Right Assessing American Nuclear Policy Based On Feasibility Acceptability And Suitability Counterpo

The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Africa, the South Pacific, and Latin America are nuclear weapon free zones. China is a most favored trading partner. The United States and Russia have dismantled hundreds of nuclear weapons and decommissioned scores of bombers and submarines. There is a myriad of international treaties designed to create a world without threat of nuclear holocaust. So why do states and other actors continue to seek nuclear weapons? Iran is in the media with its thinly veiled efforts to establish itself as a nuclear power. On 6 September 2007, Israel bombed a facility in Syria they believed to be a nuclear threat. North Korea is fattening its international bargaining power with its nuclear program. Pakistan, a nation teetering on the edge of political upheaval, has nuclear missiles. Transnational terrorist organizations relish the thought of acquiring an atomic device. Today's nuclear world is not the one our parent's knew. The purpose of this paper is to assess U.S. nuclear deterrence policy to see how it has evolved and if it is appropriate for today's changed security environment.During the Cold War the United States built an immense nuclear arsenal to deter nuclear war with the Soviet Union; a clear and valid raison d'etre. The Cold War is over; has been over for more than 10 years. The Soviet Union is gone. Our Armed Forces got a medal for it. Africa, the South Pacific, Outer Space, and Latin America are nuclear weapons free zones. Today, we have the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an Outer Space Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), three Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, two Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. The convergent thesis of these and other international agreements is a movement to remove nuclear arsenals from the options list of nation-states. The cornerstone of the movement to create a nuclear weapons free world is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT is a universally recognized agreement among 136 nuclear and non-nuclear nations to prevent the expansion of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. The days of living under the cloud of "Mutual Assured Destruction" have passed. So what is the purpose of retaining nuclear weapons in this new environment? Why are we investing tax dollars in new nuclear technology and upgrading our weapons stockpile? Where is the peace dividend?

The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Africa, the South Pacific, and Latin America are nuclear weapon free zones. China is a most favored trading partner. The United States and Russia have dismantled hundreds of nuclear weapons and decommissioned scores of bombers and submarines. There is a myriad of international treaties designed to create a world without threat of nuclear holocaust. So why do states and other actors continue to seek nuclear weapons? Iran is in the media with its thinly veiled efforts to establish itself as a nuclear power. On 6 September 2007, Israel bombed a facility in Syria they believed to be a nuclear threat. North Korea is fattening its international bargaining power with its nuclear program. Pakistan, a nation teetering on the edge of political upheaval, has nuclear missiles. Transnational terrorist organizations relish the thought of acquiring an atomic device. TodayU+2019s nuclear world is not the one our parentU+2019s knew. The purpose of this paper is to assess U.S. nuclear deterrence policy to see how it has evolved and if it is appropriate for todayU+2019s changed security environment.

Sweeping changes are occurring in the international system, presenting the United States with both opportunities and challenges. The East-West strategic rivalry that dominated the global security environment for over forty years has been fundamentally and, in a number of critical ways, irreversibly altered. Yet the world continues to be unpredictable and dangerous. Relations with Russia and China have improved dramatically in the last ten years but remain uncertain. Both states continue to emphasize and modernize their nuclear arsenals. In other regions of vital interest to the United States, potential adversaries increasingly have at their disposal advanced conventional and unconventional capabilities, as well as weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery. Together, these and other factors, such as the ongoing revolution in military technology, have engendered major adjustments in U.S. national security policy and in the strategy and forces that support U.S. security interests. A series of U.S. government analyses, including the Nuclear Posture Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review, has guided the restructuring of U.S. conventional forces and provided the basis for the late 1997 Presidential Decision Directive on nuclear weapons policy. Further analyses and adjustments will certainly follow. As a contribution to this dynamic process, this report assesses the rationale and requirements for U.S. nuclear weapons, and the infrastructure and people that are critical to their sustainment, in the current and future security environment. By so doing, the report is intended to promote greater understanding of the issues and the measures that will be necessary to sustain deterrence in an uncertain future. The American public and its leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches must remain informed, involved, and supportive. Absent concerted and continuing high-level attention to the policies and programs supporting its nuclear forces, 7.

Since coming into office in 2001, the Bush administration has enacted a series of controversial policies designed to create a more robust and more usable nuclear arsenal. From requiring new nuclear strike capabilities (including against non-nuclear countries), to threatening preemptive attacks, to investing billions of dollars in rebuilding the nuclear weapons production complex, the administration is systematically strengthening the role nuclear weapons play in defending the United States and its interests around the world. This presentation examines those policies and the thinking that underlies them. It questions the effectiveness of the administration's approach and explores some of the unintended consequences vis-a-vis U.S. policy toward North Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, and others. Finally, it takes a detailed look at current efforts to develop a new low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy hardened underground facilities, assessing the feasibility of such a device and the potential effects of its use.

This unique study examines the issue of nuclear deterrence and disarmament. Nuclear deterrence, like climate change, is a devilishly complex issue that tends to polarize its community of experts. Disarmament advocates talk about the catastrophic dangers posed by large nuclear weapon stockpiles. Proponents discuss the inherent security advantages provided by nuclear deterrence. With some notable exceptions, attitudes among world leaders in the past 40 years tend to support reduced weapon stockpiles and policies to prevent proliferation. The U.S., by virtue of its large nuclear stockpile and stature as a global superpower, remains a leader for this issue. U.S. leadership has long stated a policy towards nuclear disarmament that is conditional on the world environment and preserving security of U.S. interests and allies. This policy has generated numerous proposals by various strategists to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to levels well below the current force structure. Inevitably, each proposal generates considerable debate about the quantity of the reduction. This paper contends that quantity of reductions should not be the primary focus of debate. Rather proposals should be analyzed within the larger context of a chronological continuum with New START as the initial point and global zero as the end point. This approach aligns the entire community along the same framework and permits objective analysis of each proposal's stated deterrence objectives, how they derive credibility for these objectives, and implications to U.S. policy. Several proposals were examined in the paper to populate the continuum. The end result shows that the process of reducing the U.S. stockpile to low numbers will have profound implications to U.S. nuclear policy that have not been adequately discussed or tested. Debate over what the 'right' number of weapons is must shift to how the U.S. credibly drives to zero. On 5 April 2009, President Obama spoke at Hradcany Square in Prague and declared "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." The President's speech and follow-on policy in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review emphasized a renewed focus on reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal with a long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament. The New START Treaty, entered into force on February 5, 2011, was another tangible result of this focus on the 'road to zero.' While even the staunchest advocates admit total disarmament could take generations, if ever, these events imply a commitment to cut stockpiles that go far beyond previous arms control agreements and unilateral actions and have reenergized focus on various proposals for deeper reductions. Most of these proposals are essentially static analyses that claim deterrence would be preserved at some new stockpile threshold. Inevitably, strategists then spend considerable time arguing why the various thresholds either 'go too far' or 'don't go far enough.' With all due respect to the experts, I contend they are missing the point. Rather than supporting or tearing apart each new proposal based on subjective stockpile numbers, proposals should be evaluated dynamically along a chronological continuum. This framework accommodates the idea that various thresholds may be valid at different times. Thus, it becomes more important to evaluate proposals based on their stated deterrence objectives, how they derive credibility for these objectives, and implications to U.S. policy when aligned chronologically along the 'road to zero.' To examine this approach, I will use several proposals that are representative of different points along the continuum.

Nuclear deterrence is back. Of course, it had never disappeared, but retreated into the background as a hedge against future uncertainties. Hopes of overcoming the deterrence system through nuclear disarmament have been dashed. Nuclear deterrence gains new importance in the era of great power competitions. Arms control is stagnating, even eroding, and the modernisation of nuclear arsenals is progressing. Through nuclear sharing arrangements within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Germany is involved in nuclear deterrence. This includes the ability to deliver American nuclear bombs stored in Germany. So far, this has been ensured by nuclear-capable Tornado fighter bombers, due to be replaced in the foreseeable future. Against this background, nuclear deterrence and its strategic, legal, ethical, and political problems and dilemmas are assessed in this research paper. The focus is on US deterrence policy and its role in the Western alliance. This analysis of nuclear deterrence and its problems and dilemmas is intended to provide a basic orientation for the new nuclear debate that is emerging.

The Korean Peninsula was and is in a state of flux.More than 60 years after the war that left the country divided, the policies and unpredictability of the North Korean regime, in conjunction with the U.S. alliance with South Korea and the involvement of China in the area, leave the situation there one of the most capricious on the globe. Confronting Security Challenges on the Korean Peninsula presents the opinions from experts on the subject matter from the policy, military, and academic communities. Drawn from talks at a conference in September 2010 at Marine Corps University, the papers explore the enduring security challenges, the state of existing political and military relationships, the economic implications of unification, and the human rights concerns within North and South Korea. They also reiterate the importance for the broader East Asia region of peaceful resolution of the Korean issues.

"[Seize the high ground is a] narrative history of the Army's aerospace experience from the 1950s to the present. The focus is on ballistic missile defense, from the early NIKE-HERCULES missile program through the SAFEGUARD acquisition site allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty to the more advanced 'Star Wars' concepts studies toward the end of the century. [What is] covered is not only the technological response to the threat but the organizational and tactical development of the commands and units responsible for the defense mission"--CMH website.

A selective review of modern decision science and implications for decision-support systems. The study suggests ways to synthesize lessons from research on heuristics and biases with those from "naturalistic research." It also discusses modern tools, such as increasingly realistic simulations, multiresolution modeling, and exploratory analysis, which can assist decisionmakers in choosing strategies that are flexible, adaptive, and robust.