An Overview of Nuclear Deterrence and Arms Control at a Turning Point:Nuclear Deterrence and Arms Control at a Turning Point
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Nuclear deterrence, the foundation of peace since the end of the Second World War, has now entered into a period of transition. As US-Soviet strategic nuclear forces reached "essential equivalence, " the strategy of Assured Destruction began to be questioned. Doubts about the efficacy of this strategy produced the concept of a limited nuclear war strategy, as can be seen in the search for flexible options and the advocacy of "discriminate deterrence, " and of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which emphasizes strategic defense. The US and the Soviet Union both continue their arms race, both in terms of quantity and quality. Yet, in December 1988, the two superpowers signed the treaty to abolish Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF). Furthermore, the US and the Soviet Union continue to negotiate to reduce their strategic forces by half. Both countries have place a brake on increasing their nuclear forces, and it is possible that they will be able to go a step further and reduce these arsenals. Arms control policy has also entered a period of transition.Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was seen as a rational strategy in the 1960s. However, since the early 1970s, those responsible for US security policy began to entertain doubts regarding MAD. Moreover, the increase in Soviet military activism in the Third World only increased American suspicion. In 1974, the US Secretary for Defense, James Schlesinger, began to revise the MAD strategy, and since then, both the Carter and Reagan Administrations have subscribed to a "countervailing strategy, " and have undertaken the modernization of American strategic nuclear forces.The Soviet Union, even after it achieved parity with the US, continued to increase its nuclear forces. However, based on General-Secretary Gorbachev's "reasonable sufficiency" concept, the Soviet are moving away from an "offense-oriented" strategy and toward a "defense-oriented" strategy. It would appear also that the Soviets are moving away from their strategy of fighting and winning a nuclear war.If the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction can no longer be relied upon, what type of strategy will break the stalemate of nuclear deterrence? President Reagan has proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). However, many people have expressed their doubts about the technology, the cost, and the military strategy of SDI. Furthermore, confusion on Western strategy exists within the alliance. The Treaty to abolish INF has both surprised and confused the countries of NATO, which have relied on nuclear deterrence throughout the postwar period. Arguments exist in Europe for the modernization of nuclear forces as well as for the denuclearization of Europe, and the debate is very confused.Arguments about the future of nuclear strategy can be divided into three views. First, there is the view that a strategy based on MAD will be unavoidable in this century, and therefore we should return to MAD. The second view argues that MAD, based upon the murder of masses of people, is immoral, and therefore we should pursue and promote the SDI. And, a third view sees deterrence based on nuclear weapons as dangerous, and advocates a departure from nuclear deterrence. It is unclear which direction the US and the Soviet Union will choose in addressing strategic issues.What we need is deterrence against war. In the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that we will find an effective method of maintaining the peace other than nuclear deterrence. But, we need stable deterrence. The Western countries need to find a balance between an effective strategy and arms control. It is irresponsible to simply reduce nuclear forces without paying attention to strategic concerns. However, excessively increasing nuclear forces only provoke the other side, and it is destabilizing. What we need to do now is to construct a new conception of deterrence stability.
- 一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会の論文
一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会 | 論文
- ペルシャ湾保護国とイギリス帝国 : 脱植民地化の再検討
- The Revolutionary Diplomacy in the Era of Chinese Nationalist Revolution:East Asia and Japan during a Period of Transition : Historiclal Study
- The Conditionality in the Development Assistance : A Study on the Operational Activities by IMF, the World Bank, and UNDP:The United Nations in a Changing World
- The Sudeten Problem and World Politics between two World Wars:Studies on Diplomatic History of Contemporary Europe
- Hitlers Leadership in Foreign Policy: Chiefly on the Recent Trend of Study in West Germany:The Eve of the Second World War : International Relations in Summer, 1939