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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10. “Strategic Concept for the Defense <strong>and</strong> Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” adopted by Heads of State <strong>and</strong> Government in Lisbon, Portugal, November 19, 2010. 11. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Information <strong>and</strong> Press Department, “Statement by Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the Plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, March 1, 2011,” available from www.In.mid.ru/ bdomp/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/2de66a92e764 dbb8c3257846004dfd44!OpenDocument. 12. Conversations with senior Russian officials in Moscow <strong>and</strong> Washington, May <strong>and</strong> August 2011. 13. For a more detailed discussion of how Russian conventional force weaknesses may shape their views on nuclear forces, see Roger N. McDermott, “Russia’s Conventional Military Weakness <strong>and</strong> Substrategic <strong>Nuclear</strong> Policy,” Fort Leavenworth, KS: The Foreign Military Studies Office. 14. “The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” approved by Russian Presidential Edict on February 5, 2010. 15. “Non-Paper submitted by Pol<strong>and</strong>, Norway, Germany, <strong>and</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s on Increasing Transparency <strong>and</strong> Confidence with Regard to <strong>Tactical</strong> <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong> in Europe,” April 14, 2011. 16. See Madeleine Albright <strong>and</strong> Igor Ivanov, “Moving Ahead on Reducing <strong>Nuclear</strong> Arms,” International Herald Tribune, April 7, 2011. 17. See, for example, Alexei Arbatov, “Gambit or Endgame: The New State of Arms Control,” The Carnegie Papers, Moscow, Russia: Carnegie Moscow Center, March 2011, pp. 31-33; <strong>and</strong> Anatoliy S. Diakov, “Verified Reductions in Non-strategic <strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Weapons</strong>,” Moscow, Russia: Center for Arms Control, Energy <strong>and</strong> Environmental Studies, Moscow Institute for Physics <strong>and</strong> Technology, February 18, 2011, available from www.armscontrol. ru/. 435
18. See, for example, Pavel Podvig, Russian Strategic <strong>Nuclear</strong> Forces, “New START Treaty in Numbers,” available from www. russianforces.org/blog/2010/03/new_start_treaty_in_numbers.shtml. 19. Alexei Arbatov, “Gambit or Endgame,” pp. 13-14. 436
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 and 296:
on a modified CFE regime an
Page 297 and 298:
9. See Miles A. Pomper, William Pot
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 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?