National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century

National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century [Department of Defense] on leondumoulin.nl *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. During the Cold .
Table of contents

It makes a passionate case against nuclear weapons and for disarmament. The other camp accepts nuclear weapons as necessary and useful, sees risks from both states and nonstate actors, and advocates for retention of U. It rejects the notion that abolition would make the world a safer place. It resists continued steps to marginalize nuclear weapons in U.

Its case for nuclear weapons is pragmatic but not passionate in the way of the disarmers. These two camps do not debate each other so much as they pursue competing agendas. Though there are examples of respectful discourse between them, adherents of each camp are generally contemptuous of the views of the other.

Given the long-standing and deep divisions between these two camps, agreement on policy is rare. One practical result of this divergence has been gridlock in Congress, which has found it difficult to produce decisions in support of any particular nuclear policies. Looking for a way out of this gridlock, in Congress created a commission, with an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans, and essentially asked it two simple questions.

EAST BAY | The Case for US Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century

Is there any basis for a renewal of bipartisanship sufficient to sustain U. If so, what is it? Despite strong differences of opinion on many matters, members of the Strategic Posture Commission converged on a hopeful note. Policy continuity is possible, they argued, on the basis of a balanced approach that combines political efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate threats with military efforts to deter existing threats. Seven years later, a third camp has not coalesced around this balanced approach. This is so despite the fact that the Obama administration embraced this approach and used it as a guide in developing and implementing its nuclear policy.

Adherents of the other two camps sometimes praise the virtues of the balanced approach, but rarely are such words followed by deeds of advocacy in support of policy initiatives that depart from the canon of their camp. This book will not remake these fundamental contours of the U.


  • JOANNA.
  • Party Planning: A Guide for the Reluctant Entertainer.
  • Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century U.S. National Security?
  • New Evidence of Quran Desecration and Prison abuse by the US!
  • Introduction.
  • The Case for U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century | Brad Roberts!
  • U.S. Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century | VCDNP.

But it can help to inform the coming debate and to shift it onto more productive grounds. Toward this end, it has a number of objectives. One is to review and assess the experience of the Obama administration in working to create the conditions that would allow the United States and other states with nuclear weapons to take additional steps in the future to reduce the role and number of such weapons.

Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century

The administration has made a serious, sustained, and high-level effort toward this end. Yet, despite some important achievements, the overall results are disappointing. The lessons are many. A second objective is to review and assess the experience of the Obama administration in working to adapt nuclear deterrence to 21st-century purposes.

Having declared that nuclear deterrence should be effective so long as nuclear weapons remain, President Obama directed the Department of Defense to ensure that nuclear deterrence will be effective for the problems for which it is relevant in the 21st century.

This work has revealed important insights into the particular new challenges of regional conflicts under the nuclear shadow, of extended deterrence, and of strategic stability. The lessons here, too, are many. Does it remain valid? If so, what does it require, and what will it require of future administrations? A final objective is to fill a key gap in the current debate.

As it now stands, the case made for U. It stands on assertions about the enduring value of nuclear weapons in preventing major power war. Whether nuclear weapons will continue to be effective in preventing limited wars among major powers is an open question. Moreover, this case lacks the fidelity needed to determine which capabilities are needed.

This book sets out a somewhat different case for U. In support of these objectives, this volume proceeds as follows. It begins with a more complete characterization of the current debate about U. Chapter 1 reviews the evolution of U. It also reviews relevant developments in the external analytical and political communities with an eye to understanding their influences on the policymaking process.

Subsequent chapters explore U. Chapter 2 turns to the new strategic problem posed by the proliferation to regional actors like North Korea of nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and the long-range missiles to deliver them. This chapter develops a heuristic device for understanding the deterrence challenges for the United States posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea and perhaps by other nuclear-armed regional challengers in the future.

Nuclear Warfare in the 21st Century

It sets out a spectrum of deterrence challenges from the lowest to the highest ends of conflict. This spectrum helps to illuminate the possible ways in which such a conflict might escalate and deescalate and thus the decision points that the United States will want to influence with an eye to inducing adversary restraint. To better understand how potential U. For historians of nuclear deterrence, this term conjures up Cold War debates about whether leaders in the Soviet Union actually believed that general war involving the large-scale use of nuclear weapons could be fought and won or believed that a general war in Europe could be fought and won without crossing the nuclear threshold.

It also invokes debates about whether the United States could or should have had such a theory during the Cold War. In viewing the current security landscape as more complex, unpredictable and negative, the new NPR emphasizes the role of nuclear weapons to protect US allies and dissuade potential adversaries. However, the NPRs share a number of common themes regarding emerging threats, including in cyber and outer space. A number of other elements of continuity can be seen among the NPRs as well. Though this option has been maintained throughout the NPRs, it was noted that the United States has not invested in new weapons designs or prototypes to date, although the three NPRs safeguard the right to test such weapons.

Though the resumption of US testing was viewed to be unlikely, the consistency of maintaining this option is one that should not be overlooked when reviewing the NPRs.

U.S. Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century

So where does this leave us today? It was suggested that US nuclear policy has experienced two phases and is now transitioning into a third phase. The first phase was the Cold War period. The second phase viewed rogue states as the main concern of potential nuclear deterrence and stressed the importance of nuclear arms control, especially bilateral nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia. See what's been added to the collection in the current 1 2 3 4 5 6 weeks months years.

Cite this Email this Add to favourites Print this page. Catalogue Persistent Identifier https: You must be logged in to Tag Records. National security and nuclear weapons in the 21st century [electronic resource].


  • Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century!
  • U.S. Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century | VCDNP?
  • Church Merger.

In the Library Request this item to view in the Library's reading rooms using your library card. Order a copy Copyright or permission restrictions may apply. We will contact you if necessary. To learn more about Copies Direct watch this short online video.