Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict (original) (raw)
Related papers
2008
Another major conclusion of this study is that although nuclear weapons could have destabilizing consequences in certain situations, on net they have reinforced national security and regional stability in Asia. It is possible to argue that fledgling and small nuclear arsenals would be more vulnerable to preventive attacks; that the related strategic compulsion for early use may lead to early launch postures and crisis situations; that limited war under nuclear conditions to alter or restore the political status quo can intensify tensions and carry the risk of escalation to major war; that inadequate command, control, and safety measures could result in accidents; and that nuclear facilities and material may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These are legitimate concerns, but thus far nuclear weapons have not undermined national security and regional stability in Asia. Instead, they have ameliorated national security concerns, strengthened the status quo, increased deterrence domin...
US EXTENDED NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN EUROPE AND EAST ASIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Asian Affairs, 2022
Analysing the alliance system in Europe and Asia in a comparative perspective also demands having a look at the specific role of nuclear weapons in the defence doctrines, and more in particular the role of US extended nuclear deterrence. The main question that this article wants to resolve is: what are the similarities and differences in both regions with respect to extended nuclear deterrence ? This (comparative) descriptive analysis is complimented with the following predictive question: which trends in both regions make that extended nuclear deterrence will be strengthened, weakened, or maybe completely disappear ? To answer these questions, the following structure is followed. First, the concept of extended nuclear deterrence will be described. Next, extended nuclear deterrence will be applied to Europe and Asia. Lastly, three trends that have an impact on the current debate on extended nuclear deterrence are analysed: 1) the deteriorating security situation; 2) the changing balance of power, and more in particular the relative decline of the US and the rise of China; and 3) the evolving nuclear arms control and disarmament regime, including the arrival of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Nuclear Strategy and Regional Stability in Southern Asia
Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 2017
The essay aims to explain interconnections between international security, domestic politics and nuclear strategy of China, India and Pakistan. Most of the scholarship has been unable to probe the deep interconnections that inform the nuclear strategy of these three countries. The literature is based on a generalisation of the superpowers' Cold War nuclear experience and an analysis of the other nuclear powers' arsenal is made through the conceptual and theoretical categories offered by such literature. This article argues against using cold war experiences as a basis for conceptualizing regional powers' nuclear strategies. It begins with a discussion on Posture optimization theory, applying it to understand nuclear strategies of the three Southern Asian nuclear powers and seeks to understand the nature of strategic competition between them and its effect on their respective nuclear postures.
Nuclear doctrines and stable strategic relationships: the case of south Asia
Behind every doctrinal decision that states have to make—especially in relation to nuclear weapons—are two basic questions: one, at the substantive level, what kind of role it envisages for (in this case) nuclear weapons in meeting the country's most important security challenges; and two, with how much clarity and specific-ity, or conversely ambiguity, should the doctrine be expressed. Well-thought-out nuclear doctrines are ideally founded on a strong conception about the role, purposes and limitations of nuclear weapons, how those weapons fit into the pursuit of a country's grand strategy, and a set of core beliefs and ideas about the operationalization of the weapons to reflect a sound balance of all these different facets. The potential for nuclear instability is greatest where a doctrine reflects either a lack of strategic thought or some kind of strategic drift in conceptualizing how nuclear weapons feature within a country's grand strategy, or where there is a clear mismatch between the security challenges faced by a state and the kind of role it assigns to nuclear weapons. The choice between ambiguity and clarity often feeds into this dynamic. Ambiguous doctrines, when they reflect either kind of strategic uncertainty noted above, can be a source of dangerous miscalculation and inadvertent escalation of tensions. This is especially true in new nuclear states that lack experience with respect to the limitations of nuclear weapons. Yet new nuclear states also tend not to state their doctrines unequivocally, relying on ambiguity to maximize the deterrent effects and political utility of their nascent nuclear forces. Ambiguity, then, may be a short-term necessity, but in the longer term can end up being counterproductive. Against the background of the dilemmas presented by the doctrinal and posture choices of nuclear states, this article offers a discussion of nuclear doctrines, and their significance for war, peace and stability in what is possibly the most active nuclear region in present times—south Asia. The cases of India and Pakistan are offered to show the challenges new nuclear states face in articulating and implementing a proper nuclear doctrine. It is argued here that the nuclear doctrines and postures of both India and Pakistan are problematic from a regional security perspective, but for somewhat different reasons. In India's case, newer challenges and a lack of strategic focus have led to increasing ambiguity in a doctrine that at its inception suggested both a certain level of clarity and