responsibility to disarm remains in the distant future, unaddressed as a present imperative. This position emphasizes an anti-nuclear politics entirely for what it means for the rest of the world - securing nuclear materials and preventing other states from going nuclear or further developing their existing arsenals. In other words, it’s about other people's nuclear weapons, not the 99% of materials and arms possessed by the United States and other established nuclear powers. However, the anti-nuclear posture in their policy proposal comes to bear only on preventing non-nuclear states from going nuclear, or else preventing international criminal conspiracies from proliferating weapons technologies and nuclear materials for use as instruments of non-state terror. elites have rarely uttered: that abolition is both possible and desirable. These four elder statesmen have said what many U.S. It’s a conspicuous yet merely rhetorical commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. Yet the fine print of their plan, published by the Hoover Institute and others since then, represents the anti-nuclear nuclearist platform to a tee.
#Define stockpile stewardship and its purpose series
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn - announced in a series of op-eds their commitment to "a world free of nuclear weapons." Strange bedfellows indeed for the cause. Many disarmament proponents were elated last year when four extremely prominent cold warriors - George P. leaders have allowed for and even promoted a mass proliferation of nuclear energy and material, albeit under the firm control of the nuclear weapons states, with the United States at the top of this pile. By these means the United States has tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, even though it has designed and built newly modified weapons with qualitatively new capacities over the last decade and a half.
It requires a fig leaf that the United States isn’t developing new nuclear weapons, and that it is slowly disarming and de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal. arsenal further, and at least rhetorically recommitting the United States to international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iraq in 2003).Įffectively pursuing this kind of belligerent nonproliferation regime requires half-steps toward cutting the U.S. Nonproliferation efforts are aimed entirely at other states, especially non-nuclear nations with suspected weapons programs, or states that can be coerced and attacked under the pretense that they possess nuclear weapons or a development program (e.g. and allied forces, it prioritizes an aggressive diplomatic and military campaign of nonproliferation. stockpile as a strategic deterrence or umbrella for U.S.
Unlike past forms of nuclearism, it de-emphasizes the offensive nature of the U.S. nuclear and military dominance by rhetorically calling for what has long been derided as a naïve ideal: global nuclear disarmament. Even the national nuclear weapons development labs in New Mexico and California have been avid supporters and crafters of of it.Īs a policy, anti-nuclear nuclearism is designed to ensure U.S. Anti-nuclear nuclearism thrives as a school of thought in several think tanks that have long influenced foreign policy choices related to global nuclear forces. power, including the nuclear arsenal, but makes rhetorical and even some substantive commitments to disarmament, however vaguely defined. The Obama administration is likely to continue a policy that we call “anti-nuclear nuclearism.” Anti-nuclear nuclearism is a foreign and military policy that relies upon overwhelming U.S. Nonproliferation Leadership and his response to this piece.) Please also see Russ Wellen's Abdicating U.S.
(Editor's Note: This is part of a strategic dialogue on U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
