Nuclear Sharing:-
Nuclear sharing is a concept of nuclear deterrence, which basically refers to the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS (Nuclear Weapon States) to NNWS (Non-Nuclear Weapon States). This practice truly enforces the concept of a nuclear umbrella. The deadly B61 Bombs are located all across the European Continent due to NATO’s practice of nuclear sharing and its complex nuclear policy.
(I) Nuclear Policy of NATO:-
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the fundamental obstructions to ending the practice of nuclear sharing.
At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, NATO confirmed that as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance, and that deterrence based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy.
NATO has always defined “deterrence” in the broader sense that the United States expanded nuclear weapon storage over the territory of their nonnuclear Allies.
In this concept of “extended deterrence”, The United States took the commitment to retaliate with nuclear weapons not only in case of an attack on its own homeland but also in case of an aggression against other NATO members. NATO’s current nuclear posture consists primarily of air delivered nuclear bombs (Type B-61) stationed in Europe.
The presence of nuclear weapons in the NWS NATO members was done during the Cold War Era with an intention of creating a political effect. The main objective
The North Atlantic Treaty was written to form an alliance between the anticommunist Western European and North American nations. When it was written, in 1949, the twelve nations that would initially make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, all came to the agreement that if any one of the member countries were attacked, such attack would be taken as an offense to all of the member countries, and a counter assault would certainly take place (North Atlantic Treaty). Because NATO was a defense organization, being prepared to fight back in the event of an attack from the Soviet Union embodied one of its most important requirements. Therefore, much consideration and money went into assembling an array of potent nuclear weapons that could overwhelm the Soviets and inhibit them from triggering a nuclear war (North Atlantic Treaty Organization 4). The main purpose of this protective alliance was to contain communism and thus to prevent it from spreading around
Nuclear weapons are like the latest toys for state actors. It’s something that everyone wants to have because it shows your strength, wealth and power. Trying to deter people away from that will be a very difficult task. However, I believe that it is achievable to prevent future states from nuclear proliferation. I believed that if we get all the nuclear states on board with a campaign for nuclear disbarment policy, it could be achieved. That would entail involving the U.N and the IAEA and of course major funding to start this campaign. In addition to having a campaign for nuclear disarmament, it would also be very important to stress how they’re other ways to protect ones country other than nuclear weapons. Options, which include other technologies similar to nuclear weapons without nuclear waste being involved, biological weapons, chemical weapons and the old fashion
Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states
Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments
Extended deterrence can be summed up as the prevention of an attack or invasion against another country. For example, the United States has used its military might and its deterrence strategies to prevent the spread of communism by stepping in between Russia and the countries the former Soviet Union wanted to invade. The Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are just a few such examples. Nuclear deterrence dissuades the adversary. It is a psychological pressure that most surely affects enemy decisions. The U.S. doesn’t just step in the middle of conflict to extend deterrence; it also places its nuclear weapons in allied countries to persuade adversaries against invading or threatening them. This “nuclear umbrella” as it has been termed, discourages expansion, thwarts threatening behaviors, prevents invasions, and inhibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When the nuclear umbrella is extended to U.S. allies, those countries become bound together to fight against more powerful nations such as Russia. Allied nations then garner protection from an equally powerful America and thus, they tend to not seek nuclear weapons of their own. Extended deterrence has not fully prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons however. According to Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Director,
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each constructed a supply of nuclear weapons. Soviet policy rested on the principle that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The United States embraced nuclear deterrence, the reliable threat of reprisal to prevent enemy attack. To make its threat substantial, the United States during the 1950s established and positioned several types of delivery structures for attacking the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. Each one of these systems came to be known as the Strategic Triad. One part of the triad was a long range manned bomber that would deliver the nuclear warhead. The second would be land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). The third part of this triad was nuclear
Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.
Taking away nuclear deterrence from the argument, it is the conventional forces that provide the U.S. military to protect the homeland, deter aggression, and project power abroad – the direct aims of the 2014 QDR and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. Legitimate deterrence requires credible capability. The 2014 QDR seeks to reset the military, not to whitewash the past decade or the likelihood of continued irregular conflict, but rather to reset and reinvest the conventional capabilities for conflict with a peer competitor. To do so requires
Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction
Furthermore the concept of taboo and deterrence working together comes from theorist Henry Kissinger who was the Secretary of State under the Richard Nixon administration during the Vietnam War and played a huge roll in United States foreign policy. In his book ‘Diplomacy’, Kissinger writes, “Never have the military gap between the superpower and non-nuclear state been greater. Never was it best likely to be invoked.”[6] Tanenwald would suggest Taboo was working in the concept of Deterrence with Kissinger’s words, possibly signalling the importance of taboo as a reason for nuclear non-use since 1945.
A treaty was signed that prohibited the creation of defenses for nuclear weapons due to an advantage they might have if a nuclear war was to start. “The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, prohibits the use of defensive systems that might give an advantage to one side in a nuclear war”
Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.
The ongoing debate of whether or not nuclear weapons are obsolete or not is a very complex one. Numerous studies have purported that nuclear weapons no longer serve an important strategic purpose for countries such as the United States of America and Great Britain. Clausewitz stated that war and politics were inextricably linked. So the distinction between “political” and “military” viability of nuclear weapons is one without meaning. Essentially this implies that deterrence theory still works, at least between state actors. After all, no nuclear power has ever been attacked by another state, and the same can’t be said about attacks by nuclear powers on non-nuclear states.
The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,
The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.