Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Are nuclear weapons useful for coercive diplomacy? Since 1945, most strategic thinking about nuclear weapons has focused on deterrence - using nuclear threats to prevent attacks against the nation's territory and interests. But an often overlooked question is whether nuclear threats can also coerce adversaries to relinquish possessions or change their behavior. Can nuclear weapons be used to blackmail other countries? The prevailing wisdom is that nuclear weapons are useful for coercion, but this book shows that this view is badly misguided. Nuclear weapons are useful mainly for deterrence and self-defense, not for coercion. The authors evaluate the role of nuclear weapons in several foreign policy contexts and present a trove of new quantitative and historical evidence that nuclear weapons do not help countries achieve better results in coercive diplomacy. The evidence is clear: the benefits of possessing nuclear weapons are almost exclusively defensive, not offensive.
Are nuclear weapons useful for coercive diplomacy? Since 1945, most strategic thinking about nuclear weapons has focused on deterrence - using nuclear threats to prevent attacks against the nation's territory and interests. But an often overlooked question is whether nuclear threats can also coerce adversaries to relinquish possessions or change their behavior. Can nuclear weapons be used to blackmail other countries? The prevailing wisdom is that nuclear weapons are useful for coercion, but this book shows that this view is badly misguided. Nuclear weapons are useful mainly for deterrence and self-defense, not for coercion. The authors evaluate the role of nuclear weapons in several foreign policy contexts and present a trove of new quantitative and historical evidence that nuclear weapons do not help countries achieve better results in coercive diplomacy. The evidence is clear: the benefits of possessing nuclear weapons are almost exclusively defensive, not offensive.
DETERRING AND RESPONDING TO AYSMMETRICAL THREATS by Major John W Reynolds, United States Army, 59 pages.The United States involvement in military operations around the world has operational commanders on the front line against asymmetrical threats, be it from state or nonstate actors. In Somalia US soldiers were exposed to mortar attacks that originated from hospitals and schoolyards. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, US soldiers confronted an enemy that hid weapons in mosques, hospitals, and schools and wore civilian clothing to avoid destruction. Operational commanders will continue to face these types of threats regardless of the type of operation they undertake: Offense, Defense, Stability, or Support. The tendency for belligerent actors to avoid open area conflict with the United States will certainly increase. These approaches are intended to offset America's strength and intended to attack America's weakness. With the increase of asymmetric attacks and the potential of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to rogue actors, where does this leave the United States' strategy of nuclear and conventional deterrence? Is the US Army capable in playing a deterrent role against these threats?This study examines the doctrinal definition of deterrence, reviews Bernard Brodie's deterrence theory and discusses the impacts of his theory upon state and nonstate actors. The study further defines the terms asymmetry and asymmetrical threats and reviews a World View Threat survey (European and American) that identifies these asymmetrical threats as Islamic fundamentalists. Additionally, the study presents the ends, ways, and means utilized by the Union Army during the Civil War, and the ends, ways, means utilized by the US Army during operations in Bosnia in order to deter asymmetrical threats. The study concludes by presenting operational commanders with five principles for consideration when designing campaign plans against asymmetrical threats. These five principles are 1) first strike capability, 2) force protection (second strike capability), 3) the ability to threaten sever consequences on the belligerent's interests, 4) sending a deterrence message, and 5) demonstrating the will and determination to conduct retaliatory strikes. Additionally, the study concludes that neither active, passive, nor retributive actions by themselves are effective in deterring asymmetrically threats; it is only when these three actions are integrated together into a single campaign plan where one can hope to deter asymmetrical threats and regain the deterrence equilibrium.iv
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.