Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on nuclear confidence-building <strong>and</strong> transparency. Involving China—<strong>and</strong> eventually the other nuclear-armed states India, Israel, <strong>and</strong> Pakistan—in an arms control dialogue could also go some way towards addressing the long-term problem of preserving the strategic balances under conditions of nuclear disarmament. In the end, the real challenge will be to assure others that regional military imbalances <strong>and</strong> U.S. conventional supremacy are no threats to international stability <strong>and</strong> security. ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 11 1. Final Document of the 2010 <strong>Nuclear</strong> Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>, NPT/CONF.2010/50, Vol. I, New York, 2010. 2. William J. Perry <strong>and</strong> James R. Schlesinger, Final Report of the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, “Executive Summary,” Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, May 2009. 3. <strong>Nuclear</strong> Posture Review Report, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 2010, p. xiii. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. James Cartwright, Meeting on <strong>Nuclear</strong> Posture Review, Council of Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, April 8, 2010. 7. Hans Kristensen <strong>and</strong> Robert S. Norris, “U.S. <strong>Tactical</strong> <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong> in Europe,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2011, pp. 64ff. 8. <strong>NATO</strong> New Strategic Concept: Active Engagement, Modern Defense, Lisbon, Portugal, November 2010. 275
9. See Miles A. Pomper, William Potter, <strong>and</strong> Nikolai Sokov, Reducing <strong>and</strong> Regulating <strong>Tactical</strong> (Non-strategic) <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong> in Europe, Monterey, CA: The James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies, 2009; World Armaments, Disarmament <strong>and</strong> International Security: SIPRI Yearbook, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 373-375; Gunnar Arbman <strong>and</strong> Charles Thornton, “Part II: Technical Issues <strong>and</strong> Policy Recommendations,”Russia´s <strong>Tactical</strong> <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>, Stockholm, Sweden: FOI-Swedish Defence Research Agency, February 2005. 10. Alexei Arbatov, “Non-Strategic <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>,” in <strong>NATO</strong>-Russia Relations: Prospects for New Security Architecture, <strong>Nuclear</strong> Reductions, CFE-Treaty, Moscow, Russia: IMEMO RAN, 2010, pp. 28-40. 11. Andrei Zagorski, Russia’s <strong>Tactical</strong> <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>: Posture, Politics <strong>and</strong> Arms Control, Hamburg, Germany: Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg, 2011. 12. Ibid., pp. 18-21. 13. See in detail the study by Michael Brzoska, Anne Finger, Oliver Meier, Götz Neuneck, <strong>and</strong> Wolfgang Zellner, Prospects for Arms Control in Europe, Berlin, Germany: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, November 2011. 14. Zagorski, p. 6. 15. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, <strong>and</strong> Sam Nunn, “A World Free of <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>,” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, p. A15; <strong>and</strong> “Toward a <strong>Nuclear</strong>-Free World,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008, p. A13. 16. See George P. Shultz, Steven P. Andreasen, Sidney D. Drell, <strong>and</strong> James E.Goodby, Reykjavik Revisited. Steps Toward a World Free of <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, pp. 482-483. 17. Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizsäcker, Egon Bahr, <strong>and</strong> Hans-Dietrich Genscher, “Für eine atomwaffenfreie Welt,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, January 9, 2009, p. 10. 276
Page 1 and 2:
Visit our website for other free pu
Page 3 and 4:
***** Comments pertaining to this r
Page 5 and 6:
6. Aspects of the Current Russian P
Page 7 and 8:
21. Arms Control after START ......
Page 9 and 10:
this incredible amount of destructi
Page 11 and 12:
hundreds of U.S. weapons (a
Page 14 and 15:
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND <stron
Page 16 and 17:
Security was an additional problem.
Page 18 and 19:
embraced lessons learned from the 1
Page 20:
I learned here of some of the deep
Page 24 and 25:
CHAPTER 1 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT Ri
Page 26 and 27:
as just another kind of military op
Page 28 and 29:
it, the Allies were unlikely to agr
Page 30 and 31:
• Assets for future arms control
Page 32 and 33:
ments are dissimilar. Whereas Europ
Page 34 and 35:
CHAPTER 2 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 36 and 37:
ombs in Europe as strategic weapons
Page 38 and 39:
experiences of war, in a less moral
Page 40 and 41:
Strangelovian image for NAT
Page 42 and 43:
II. 1953-1963. U.S. STRATEGIC SUPER
Page 44 and 45:
• For what political purposes mig
Page 46 and 47:
widely heralded move to flexible re
Page 48 and 49:
clear sentiment for the Alliance <s
Page 50 and 51:
Nevertheless, Germany underst<stron
Page 52 and 53:
first in order to break up his forc
Page 54 and 55:
saw Pact lines to interdict strateg
Page 56 and 57:
The Democratic People’s Republic
Page 58 and 59:
given release authority by the Sovi
Page 60 and 61:
III. 1963-1967. EMERGING DOUBTS CON
Page 62 and 63:
esponse: without it, the Allies wer
Page 64 and 65:
ous arms control groups argue that
Page 66 and 67:
Why Did NATO Keep
Page 68 and 69:
France were equipped with nuclear w
Page 70 and 71:
slowly changing deterrence ethos wa
Page 72 and 73:
through widespread protests, openly
Page 74 and 75:
although it decided that the remain
Page 76 and 77:
e concealed by the regular annual <
Page 78 and 79:
However, concerned by the post-Viet
Page 80 and 81:
ously create a public and</
Page 82 and 83:
ers have repeatedly reemphasized th
Page 84 and 85:
judged to generate (but which may n
Page 86 and 87:
5. “The position we have reached
Page 88 and 89:
24. Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructe
Page 90 and 91:
49. Catherine McArdle Kelleher, “
Page 92 and 93:
76. Joseph F. Pilat and</st
Page 94 and 95:
100. Corroborated by Catherine Kell
Page 96 and 97:
CHAPTER 3 U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLI
Page 98 and 99:
the North Atlantic Treaty Organizat
Page 100 and 101:
delivery exercised a dominant influ
Page 102 and 103:
conventional strength. 14 In the Pa
Page 104 and 105:
the capability to employ such weapo
Page 106 and 107:
ground-launched short-range nuclear
Page 108 and 109:
curity policy in Asia, and<
Page 110 and 111:
lies. 31 At the strategic a
Page 112 and 113:
mediate postwar period. Washington
Page 114 and 115:
ons throughout the Cold War <strong
Page 116 and 117:
These shifts are the products both
Page 118 and 119:
power and the prol
Page 120 and 121:
7. Robert S. Norris et al., “Wher
Page 122 and 123:
frey A. Larsen and
Page 124 and 125:
near Central Europe and</st
Page 126:
47. Available from armedservices.ho
Page 130 and 131:
CHAPTER 4 RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVES ON T
Page 132 and 133:
Russian Navy would be particularly
Page 134 and 135:
ers to produce income from Russian
Page 136 and 137:
3. These are the results of polls o
Page 138 and 139:
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE FE
Page 140 and 141:
Russia’s anticipated spending of
Page 142 and 143:
arms race was on, and</stro
Page 144 and 145:
heads; and improve
Page 146 and 147:
national security strategy. Current
Page 148 and 149:
On April 23, 1999, Viktor Nikolaevi
Page 150 and 151:
First of all, the word “obligatio
Page 152 and 153:
By 2004, a young scholar, Aleksei F
Page 154 and 155:
time, it seems to believe that, in
Page 156 and 157:
ence as the chief factor that limit
Page 158 and 159:
their modernization as a response.
Page 160 and 161:
in areas affecting Russian national
Page 162 and 163:
armed struggle at sea for the perio
Page 164 and 165:
centric warfare. Citing both Chines
Page 166 and 167:
tation to maintain security <strong
Page 168 and 169:
PROSPECTS FOR A U.S.-RUSSIAN TREATY
Page 170 and 171:
uild a missile defense system in so
Page 172 and 173:
10. “Ktokhitree: Mir vstupil v er
Page 174 and 175:
36. Sergei Karaganov “Global Zero
Page 176 and 177:
CHAPTER 6 ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT RU
Page 178 and 179:
NATO countries. Du
Page 180 and 181:
allistic missile defense (BMD), <st
Page 182 and 183:
Meanwhile, the factor of China (wit
Page 184 and 185:
Today, in fact, only the nuclear um
Page 186 and 187:
By the same logic, preventing a pot
Page 188 and 189:
diminishes still further Russian in
Page 190 and 191:
1989 —April 12 SHORT-RANGE NUCLEA
Page 192 and 193:
where Russian interest is higher th
Page 194 and 195:
6. Kozin, “Five obstacles.” 7.
Page 196 and 197:
CHAPTER 7 INFLUENCES ON RUSSIAN POL
Page 198 and 199:
general and its ow
Page 200 and 201:
are show of unanimity from nearly a
Page 202 and 203:
ally; it is just that others are ac
Page 204 and 205:
to direct Russian toward multilater
Page 206 and 207:
armor, like T-62 tanks and<
Page 208 and 209:
Reducing Non-Strategic Nucl
Page 210 and 211:
The Russian inventory has been redu
Page 212 and 213:
Under present conditions, the range
Page 214 and 215:
Ws should be multilateral, with the
Page 216 and 217:
continue the practice of conducting
Page 218 and 219:
the General Staff Nikolai Makarov o
Page 220 and 221:
CHAPTER 8 RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVES ON N
Page 222 and 223:
Yet these concerns are most likely
Page 224 and 225:
Bush and Mikhail G
Page 226 and 227:
anyone’s guess. As mentioned abov
Page 228 and 229:
STRATEGY Russian NSNWs attracted in
Page 230 and 231:
lored damage” (zadannyi ushcherb)
Page 232 and 233:
intrigue pertaining to nuclear weap
Page 234 and 235:
eaching political, military, <stron
Page 236 and 237:
Inertia. The longer this position i
Page 238 and 239:
In a similar vein, the Foreign Mini
Page 240 and 241:
THE RUSSIAN NSNW POSITION: LIMITS A
Page 242 and 243:
tated to what it calls an “integr
Page 244 and 245:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 8 1. “Zayavlen
Page 246 and 247: 13. The 12th Main Department of the
Page 248: PART III EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES 227
Page 251 and 252: ope is illustrative of a more funda
Page 253 and 254: maintaining these weapons or their
Page 256 and 257: CHAPTER 10 THE ROLE AND PLACE OF TA
Page 258 and 259: positions, preoccupations,
Page 260 and 261: cohesion and solid
Page 262 and 263: ferred to by the now familiar term
Page 264 and 265: The second track is an effort to de
Page 266 and 267: The United States. The traditional
Page 268 and 269: the nuclear discussions apply only
Page 270 and 271: supported by other members. However
Page 272 and 273: cerning its nuclear posture. On the
Page 274 and 275: tial expert on the dangers of nucle
Page 276: 8. This is reminiscent of the posit
Page 279 and 280: a London or Paris perspective, thei
Page 281 and 282: One of the most important factors w
Page 283 and 284: mer Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chie
Page 285 and 286: Armed Service Air and</stro
Page 287 and 288: Nunn in 2007 and 2
Page 289 and 290: that the debate on a nuclear-free w
Page 291 and 292: modify the Alliance’s nuclear pos
Page 293 and 294: years. Signs of progress include th
Page 295: on a modified CFE regime an
Page 299 and 300: Paper, No. 7, Washington, DC: Arms
Page 301 and 302: eventual elimination are considered
Page 303 and 304: In the post-bipolar international s
Page 305 and 306: levels of enthusiasm, most European
Page 307 and 308: DIFFERING THREAT ASSESSMENTS AND AL
Page 309 and 310: troops in 2008 and
Page 311 and 312: that NATO as a who
Page 313 and 314: distinction between tactical <stron
Page 315 and 316: 12. Author’s interview with a sen
Page 317 and 318: 19. NATO’s argum
Page 319 and 320: 31. Valasek, p. 24. 32. Lukasz Kule
Page 322 and 323: CHAPTER 13 EUROPE, NATO</st
Page 324 and 325: not reached a clear consensus on wh
Page 326 and 327: In an environment in which there is
Page 328 and 329: ing of signals within the Alliance.
Page 330 and 331: NATO foreign minis
Page 332 and 333: mean that the strategic lan
Page 334 and 335: weapon holdings did not exceed 225
Page 336 and 337: attitude to how nuclear weapons wil
Page 338 and 339: ghanistan will also help to determi
Page 340 and 341: German territory. On the other h<st
Page 342: PART IV AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES 321
Page 345 and 346: siles and aircraft
Page 347 and 348:
ment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Eur
Page 349 and 350:
that these weapons still have a rol
Page 351 and 352:
with nuclear weapons, and</
Page 353 and 354:
homeland. The trad
Page 355 and 356:
However, if the United States were
Page 357 and 358:
(estimated, to be 150-200) of U.S.
Page 359 and 360:
er-projection capabilities, <strong
Page 361 and 362:
ventional weapons. Unlike the perce
Page 363 and 364:
any U.S. NSNWs deployed or stored i
Page 365 and 366:
ganizational changes in recent year
Page 367 and 368:
It is unrealistic to believe, as so
Page 369 and 370:
Prague agenda with its goal of glob
Page 371 and 372:
has a different set of critical qua
Page 373 and 374:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 15 1. Assistant
Page 375 and 376:
15. Ibid., p. xii. 16. Ibid. 17. Ib
Page 377 and 378:
Hans M. Kristensen, “Nucl
Page 379 and 380:
52. See Jeffrey A. Larsen a
Page 381 and 382:
Hence, whatever course the Allies s
Page 383 and 384:
self from the conflict. Of course,
Page 385 and 386:
arguments by and l
Page 387 and 388:
cal to the later stages of this cam
Page 389 and 390:
The fundamentals of Smart Defense a
Page 391 and 392:
deterrence and def
Page 393 and 394:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 16 1. These are
Page 396 and 397:
CHAPTER 17 ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 398 and 399:
Two of the greatest enduring threat
Page 400 and 401:
a monkey to an altitude of 120 km (
Page 402 and 403:
including a “dual capable” (nuc
Page 404 and 405:
By the end of the Cold War, in 1991
Page 406 and 407:
U.S. Focus and Int
Page 408 and 409:
eset by conflict, deterrence seeks
Page 410 and 411:
Command in 2010. H
Page 412 and 413:
y arms control and
Page 414 and 415:
into account the disparity between
Page 416 and 417:
Furthermore, the United States <str
Page 418 and 419:
table price human beings must pay t
Page 420 and 421:
16. See www.tradereform.org/wp-cont
Page 422:
PART V ARMS CONTROL AS AN OPTION 40
Page 425 and 426:
ise as a vehicle for regulating <st
Page 427 and 428:
arms control to address the perceiv
Page 429 and 430:
posite discussion within the contex
Page 432 and 433:
CHAPTER 19 ARMS CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
Page 434 and 435:
U.S. AND RUSSIAN NON-STRATEGIC NUCL
Page 436 and 437:
into the discussion is that it woul
Page 438 and 439:
get missiles on NATO</stron
Page 440 and 441:
ficials have announced a major 10-y
Page 442 and 443:
the INF Treaty banned all INF missi
Page 444 and 445:
Others have also suggested that tra
Page 446 and 447:
ample of the latter, in 1991 Presid
Page 448 and 449:
certain percentage, say 50 percent.
Page 450 and 451:
heads. Nondeployed strategic warhea
Page 452 and 453:
ily in Washington’s judgment, <st
Page 454 and 455:
publican president is less clear at
Page 456 and 457:
10. “Strategic Concept for the De
Page 458 and 459:
CHAPTER 20 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 460 and 461:
Most of the attempted adaptation <s
Page 462 and 463:
ight metric (and t
Page 464 and 465:
weapons (NSNWs)? A look at the key
Page 466 and 467:
other, has ever gained serious cons
Page 468 and 469:
who occasionally address other thea
Page 470 and 471:
most of the other parties. Russia
Page 472 and 473:
security concerns and</stro
Page 474 and 475:
objectives and out
Page 476 and 477:
CHAPTER 21 ARMS CONTROL AFTER START
Page 478 and 479:
withdrawal as part of a wider disen
Page 480 and 481:
ience with the Anti-Ballistic Missi
Page 482 and 483:
strengthening of first-strike stabi
Page 484 and 485:
ons away from the territory of <str
Page 486 and 487:
is the relationship between them th
Page 488 and 489:
would have added credibility were i
Page 490 and 491:
still making a substantial contribu
Page 492 and 493:
tionship between transparency <stro
Page 494 and 495:
NATO WILL SURVIVE
Page 496:
As in the past, the most likely cau
Page 499 and 500:
summit on the effective control of
Page 501 and 502:
deployed to Europe to approximately
Page 503 and 504:
NATO policymakers.
Page 505 and 506:
One of the alliances, the Warsaw Pa
Page 507 and 508:
Hungary, and Slova
Page 509 and 510:
statement at the conclusion of the
Page 511 and 512:
anti-ballistic missiles on Polish t
Page 513 and 514:
Following the meeting of OSCE forei
Page 515 and 516:
inform Russia of any significant ch
Page 517 and 518:
are difficult to correlate complete
Page 519 and 520:
West. President Obama noted such a
Page 521 and 522:
ing agreements. It must also combin
Page 523 and 524:
19. Ibid. 20. Lachowski, p. 5. 21.
Page 526:
PART VI CONCLUSION 505
Page 529 and 530:
that means. Today, this seems to be
Page 531 and 532:
more prosaic level, the presence of
Page 533 and 534:
fence and Foreign
Page 535 and 536:
JEFFREY A. LARSEN is a Senior Scien
Page 537 and 538:
GUY B. ROBERTS was until recently <
Page 539:
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE Major General
show all

Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?