Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
Tag Archive for: Nuclear Weapons
Tag Archive for: Nuclear Weapons
Prohibiting low-yield nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction
Malcolm Davis raises some important issues regarding our proposal for a treaty restricting low-yield nuclear weapons. We’re word limited on our response, so we strongly recommend the longer discussion paper for subject-matter experts as it examines comprehensively all of the issues that Dr Davis quite rightly raised.
There are of course a number of views put forward by Davis that we’d associate ourselves with; such as the role of traditional nuclear deterrence, and the need to pursue tools in addition to arms control for reducing nuclear risk (he referred to tactical ballistic missile defence systems for instance).
And yet, the scepticisms expressed with respect to the proposed treaty appear to reflect a misunderstanding of the relationship that exists between this proposed arms control measure and overall military strategy. Read more
A low-yield solution to nuclear problems
Crispin Rovere and Kalman A Robertson suggest eliminating low-yield non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW) in ‘Non-strategic nuclear weapons: The next step in multilateral arms control’. I’m sceptical of their proposed solution—a Minimum Yield Threshold Treaty. Firstly, their definition of a ‘low-yield’ weapon as having a yield of 5 kilotons (kt) or lower is open to challenge given the nature of modern nuclear weapons which have selectable yields. This definition creates a serious problem because states with low-yield NSNWs can design such weapons to have yields higher than 5 kt, and be excluded from any minimum-yield threshold treaty. This would make any such treaty relatively easy to circumvent from a technical standpoint.
A more fundamental problem is how to make such a treaty actually happen. How do you convince North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan, and potentially Iran in the near future, to sign an agreement to ban low-yield NSNWs? New nuclear weapons states choose to acquire these weapons in line with what they judge to be their strategic interests. For example, Pakistan’s acquisition of NSNWs can be seen to be a response to a combination of Indian conventional military advantage, and lack of Pakistani geographical depth along the lines of any Indian military advance, together with lack of warning time under Indian ‘Cold Start’ military doctrine. Removal of Pakistan’s NSNWs would see Islamabad faced with either a quick defeat at the conventional warfighting level, or rapid escalation to strategic nuclear strikes on Indian cities in the event of a major conflict on the subcontinent. Pakistan’s rapidly growing nuclear arsenal generates a security dilemma for Delhi in return, which responds through its own nuclear modernisation. Read more
Thinking about China’s nuclear weapons
At a recent ‘track 2’ meeting between Americans and Australians, China’s nuclear arsenal was the subject of considerable debate. In the view of one participant, Beijing’s actual number of strategic nuclear weapons is much higher than the official US intelligence estimate of 300 and could be as much as 1,300. He based his claim on the much-reported 2011 Georgetown University project led by Professor Philipp Karber which concluded that China could have as many 3,000 nuclear weapons hidden in its vast ‘underground great wall’.
When Beijing recently released a new Defence White Paper (DWP), the New York Times ran an op-ed which argued that China had abandoned its long-standing nuclear ‘no first-use’ (NFU) policy because it didn’t get a mentioning in the document. If correct, such assessments would signal a major shift in China’s nuclear strategy. A Chinese arsenal of over 1,000 strategic warheads would basically lead to a Cold War-type situation of mutual assured destruction (MAD) in China’s nuclear relationship with the US and also in its dealings with Russia. A change in its nuclear doctrine would signal to the US and the rest of the region that Beijing now assigns nuclear weapons a major priority in its foreign, security and defence policy. It would also display Chinese anxieties about the heightened possibility of a preemptive strike by the US, with either conventional or nuclear weapons, against its nuclear forces. Read more