27.04.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

General Political Guidelines (GPGs), which stated that<br />

initial use of nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s would occur mainly <strong>on</strong><br />

the territory of the aggressor, viz., the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.<br />

The principal purpose would be to signal <str<strong>on</strong>g>NATO</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolve<br />

to escalate to the strategic level if necessary. The<br />

GPGs shifted the weight of targeting opti<strong>on</strong>s from the<br />

battlefield itself toward deep strikes <strong>on</strong> Warsaw Pact<br />

territory, thus ab<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong>ing any noti<strong>on</strong> of dem<strong>on</strong>strative<br />

use as menti<strong>on</strong>ed in the PPGs. It was now accepted<br />

that the initial signal had to be militarily effective.<br />

But the <str<strong>on</strong>g>NATO</str<strong>on</strong>g> allies did not resolve the difference between<br />

the persistent U.S. preference for battlefield use<br />

of TNWs to achieve well-defined military objectives<br />

while limiting escalati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e h<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> the West<br />

German insistence <strong>on</strong> deep strikes precisely to emphasize<br />

the risks of escalati<strong>on</strong>. The GPGs were described<br />

as shifting further towards signaling <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> away from<br />

warfighting, but they covered every c<strong>on</strong>tingency <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

ruled out n<strong>on</strong>e. 106 However, within a very few years<br />

these disputes over the development of flexible resp<strong>on</strong>se<br />

would be obsolete.<br />

TNWs in Korea. On the Korean Peninsula, the<br />

worldwide reducti<strong>on</strong> of U.S. nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s was<br />

especially complicated. The serious direct threat from<br />

reckless DPRK aggressi<strong>on</strong>, as well as China’s military<br />

buildup, promoted interest <strong>on</strong> the part of U.S. allies<br />

in achieving their own independent nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s<br />

capability, which Washingt<strong>on</strong> opposed.<br />

TNWs could be used as a signal <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a reminder of<br />

deterrent realities. In 1975, when DPRK leader Kim Il<br />

Sung appeared to be emboldened by the U.S. weakness<br />

apparently dem<strong>on</strong>strated by the fall of Saig<strong>on</strong>,<br />

U.S. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger decided that<br />

“we had to stop him in his tracks. I broke a l<strong>on</strong>g-established<br />

practice <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> declared we had nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s<br />

in South Korea <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> would use them if necessary.” 107<br />

56

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!