Lecture 6 - Nuclear Deterrence

Limits to nuclear weapons (6)

1. 60s decision to lower the destructive power of nuclear weapons 

2. If it is technologically possible to build a doomsday device, why hasn't any nation built one?

   1. Not strategic -> can be used for deterrence 

   2. It would create a domino effect amongst other states creating more 

3. If nuclear weapons are so small that they can cause little civilian damage why haven't they been used

   1. Nuclear taboo -> normative basis that nuclear weapons are unacceptable

Are nuclear weapons ethical?

Waltz made example -> proliferation of nuclear weapons might be good if goal is to prevent/eliminate war (made the case for Iran acquiring them)

A revolutionary weapon? (6)

1. “what was gunpowder? Trivial. What was electricity? Meaningless. This Atomic Bomb is the Second Coming in Wrath” -> Churchill

2. “this project should not be considered simply in terms of mili weapons, but as new relationship of man to universe.” - Secretary of War Stimson

3. Origins and evolution

   1. Early references to atomic weapons -> Wells 

      1. Radioactive weapon that killed everything on its path 

      2. Goes into issues of nuclear disarmament

      3. Nicolson -> UK weapon accidentally detonates 

Nuclear powers (10)

1. USA 1945

2. Soviet Union 1949

3. UK 1952

4. France 1960

5. China 1964

6. India 1974

7. Pakistan 1998

8. North Korea 2006

9. Israel? -> 90s?

10. South Africa? -> developed nuclear weapons after apartheid 

Estimated increase or decrease of nuclear wehead inventories

Deterrence - Short history (5)

1. From Adam and Eve to early Cold War

2. Cold War ‘coming of age’, ‘key concept for the understanding of the strategy and diplomacy’ of the period

3. Post-Cold War ‘semi-retirement of the term

4. Post-Crimea: term back in fashion

5. 2022 -> extremely imp

Deterrence - definition (2)

1. Persuasion of one's opponent that the costs and/or risks of a given course of action he might take outweigh its benefits” - George + Smoke 

2. Prevention of action by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction and/or belief that the cost of action outweighs the perceived benefits”  - US department Defense

General vs Immediate Deterrence

1. General: (happens prior to international crisis e.g. defense pact)  conveys a somewhat vague, broad, continuous threat of retaliation for any future attack (e.g. NATO Article 5)

2. Immediate: threatening retaliation when an attack looms, or as already occurred and the victim wants to deter its continuation

Denial vs Punishment when it comes to deterrence

1. Punishment: “threats to impose costs through retaliation that may be unrelated to aggression itself → seeks to raise cost of aggression

2. Denial: strategies seek to deter action by making it infeasible / unlikely succeed, denying potential aggressor attaining objectives—deploying sufficient local mili forces to defeat an invasion, for example”

Direct vs Extended deterrence (+ Type 3) (3)

1. Direct -> trying to deter an attack on the homeland 

   1. Type 1: Direct attack (US vs USSR)

2. Extended -> trying to deter an atack on allies - e.g. NATO

   1. Type 2: Extended deterrence challenge (NATO vs Warsaw Pact)

3. Type 3: Peripheral conflict (Korea, Vietnam) -> deter attack by a threat?

Deterrence success (5)

1. Problem of explaining a non-event

3. To measure deterrence:

   1. Evidence that illustrates challengers intent + defenders deterrent attempt

   2. BUT challengers intent difficult to discern 

   3. Are attacks that do not occur every day examples of deterrence success?

   4. What about countless reasons other than threats (self-deterrence)?

Credibility (6)

1. Problem of extended deterrence (why would you trade your own territories for allies’)

   1. Problem of incomplete info

   2. Interests at stake -> to use nuclear weapons or not 

   3. How to communicate commitment to fight

   4. Reputation/Cumulative deterrence

   5. Obama vs Assad -> Assad used nuclear weapons, Obama made the threat to Assad but didnt do anything about it in the end so Obama lost credibility 

Madman Theory (4)

1. Related to Nixon

2. Nixon → “I want North Vietnamese to believe I've reached point where I might do anything to stop war. We'll just slip the word to them that” → We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on nuclear button" + Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace

3. If you make nuclear threats you might reach a peaceful resolution - Nixon’s thought 

4. If you are mad they might take you more seriously than if you are rational 

Nuclear Weapons arguments (3)

1. “Between 30 and 50 atomic bombs would have more than done the job” of ending the Korean War.” -> MacArthur

2. “It could be that use of a few small tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam, or even threat of them, might have quickly brought war there to end” -> General William Westmoreland

3. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell told US Defense Secretary Dick Cheney at the start of the 1991 Gulf War that tactical nuclear weapons should not be used against Iraqi troops “because we don't want to let the genie out of the bottle.”

Nuclear deterrence options (4)

1. Targets

   1. Maximum / ‘overkill’ – Counterforce (military targets) + Countervalue (civilian targets) -> USA + Russia strategies 

   2. Minimum  - Countervalue only -> French+ British strategies

2. Triad? -> once they have attacked  you want to have redundancy available to be able to deter them

3. No first use -> China + India have a no first use policy -> they wont use a nuclear weapon first in  conflict, wait until someone does 

4. Mini-nukes -> smaller weapons to target smaller bases (e.g. nuclear bunkers) 

Nuclear Triad (China + US have) (3)

1. Nuclear submarines are the most likely to survive a strike by another country, guaranteeing the US the ability to strike back

2. ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missile) can be launched quickly if necessary.

3. Strategic bombers armed w penetrating cruise missiles can be deployed + recalled more easily

Damage + Destruction of Nuclear weapons (2 examples)

1. Single Integrated Operation Plan 1969

2. OPLAN 8010-08

Single Integrated Operation Plan 1969 (3)

1. US nuclear planning 

   1. Combined communist countries together (Eastern EU + Russia)

   2. Cities only below 50.000 ppl would be spared 
      

OPLAN 8010-08 (10)

1. Strategic Deterrence + Global Strike

2. Directed against 6 adversaries. 

3. Probably Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria + 9/11-type WMD scenario

4. Half do not have nuclear weapons + 4 are NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) members 

5.  Includes 4 types of nuclear attack options:

o Basic Attack Options (BAOs)

o Selective Attack Options (SAOs) 

o Emergency Response Options (EROs)

o Directed/Adaptive Planning Capability Options

6. There are no longer Major Attack Options (MAOs) in the strategic war plan

NATO nuclear deterrence timeline (10)

1. 1949: 1st Strategic Concept: use all weapons against overwhelming Soviet conventional superiority

2. 1952: Lisbon Force Goals: 96 NATO divisions ready in 90 days by 1954 (actual peacetime total in 1954: 16)

3. 1953: “New Look” 

4. 1954: MC 48: tactical atomic use to “prevent rapid overrunning”

5. 1955: FRG joins NATO, US atomic weapons in FRG

6. 1957: MC 14/2 massive retaliation w/ caveats

7. 1962: Athens Guidelines, Cuban Missile Crisis

8. 1968: MC 14/3 Flexible Response

9. 1969 to end of Cold War: how to implement flexible response

10. 1970s: NATO nuclear warheads in W. Europe reach maximum of 7k

NATO - 1991 to present (4)

1. no clear articulation of NATO nuclear policy

2. NATO nuclear policy in limbo despite 2014/2022

3. reduction in warhead numbers (200? in 2010, 100? in 2025) 

4. focus on warhead and delivery capability modernization

Russia’s ideas of nuclear weapons use (4)

1. 2020: “Basic Principles of State Policy of Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence” 

2. “The conditions specifying possibility of nuclear weapons use by Russian Federation are as follows:

3. The conditions that enable possibility of nuclear weapons employment by Russian Federation are as follows:

4. The decision to employ nuclear weapons is made by the President of the Russian Federation.

The conditions specifying possibility of nuclear weapons use by Russian Federation are as follows: (4)

1. Ballistic missiles on Russia and/or allies;

2. Use nuclear weapons/other types against Russia and/or allies

3. Attack by adversary against gov or mili sites of Russia

4. Aggression against Russian Federation w use of conventional weapons when existence of state in jeopardy

The conditions that enable the possibility of nuclear weapons employment by the Russian Federation are as follows: (5)

1. Receipt of reliable data on launch of ballistic missiles attacking territories of Russian Federation and (or) its allies;

2. Employment of nuclear / other types of weapons of mass destruction by adversary against territories of Russian Federation + (or) allies, against facilities + (or) mili formations of Russian Federation located outside territory;

3. Actions by adversary affecting elements of critically imp state or mili infrastructure of Russian Federation, disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces;

4. Aggression against Russian Federation + (or) Republic of Belarus with employment of conventional weapons, which creates critical threat to sovereignty + (or) territorial integrity;

5. Receipt of reliable data on massive launch (take-off) of air + space attack means (strategic + tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, unmanned, hypersonic + other aerial vehicles) + their crossing of state border of Russian Federation.

Chinese nuclear weapons (3)

1. Has tripled it size (from 200-600) of nuclear weapons since 2020

India vs Pakistan on nuclear weapons (7)

1. Have had conflicts in past and both developed nuclear weapons 

2. Elements of restrain 

   1. Crises

      1. 1999

      2. 2001-2002

      3. 2008

      4. 2016

      5. 2019

   2. all cases there has been retaliation as leaders are aware of consequences of nuclear war -> biggest conflict 1999 as leaders

Iran on nuclear weapons (2)

1. Hasn't crossed line of nuclear weapons yet but might soon

   1. This would trigger Saudi Arabia + Turkey(<3) becoming nuclear powers 

South Korea on nuclear weapons

Also started thinking about it after the Korean War

Future of nuclear weapons