Various policy options have been proposed for slowing or halting the spread of nuclear weapons, yet all rely on sound intelligence about the progress of nuclear aspirants. Historically, the United States's record of estimating foreign weapons programs has been uneven, overestimating the progress made by some proliferators while underestimating others. This paper seeks to catalogue and evaluate the intelligence work surrounding sixteen of the twenty-five states that are thought to have pursued nuclear weapons, and to provide a framework for evaluating the causes of distorted intelligence estimates of nuclear proliferation. In particular, we identify twelve specific hypotheses related to politics, culture, bureaucracy, and organizational culture, then explore how they play out in practice through two case studies (North Korea and Israel). We find that the US has overestimated nuclear programs much more frequently than it has underestimated or correctly estimated them.
The article surveys the responses to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) of two important external actors: the United States and Russia. It explains the motivations behind these responses and the effect of the latter on the development of the ESDP. The survey finds that both the Clinton and the Bush administrations in the USA have expressed cautious support for the initiative while insisting on NATO's salience in Europe. Russia's enthusiasm for the project is an effort to ensure its participation in European and global security affairs. The conclusion of the article briefly explores the implications of the empirical observations in the light of the future development of the ESDP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.