Search results

In the June-July 2009 issue of Survival, Scott D. Sagan argued the current case for the United States to adopt a declaratory policy of no nuclear first use. Survival invited four experts from Europe, Asia and North America to comment on Sagan's argument. The author concludes the debate with his own final thoughts. (Survival / SWP)

Based on the idea of Scott Sagan and others, this series of articles examine the proposition that America never initiate nuclear weapons use. By not initiating such use, it is believed that non-proliferation of nuclear weapons may be furthered. However, there are areas of the globe where such avoidance would hinder the US weaker, as conventional weaponry and forces would be impotent, such as in the Taiwan Strait. In this pursuit, considers such political goals as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and US ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, as well as a suggested presidential declaration attesting to the reasons for America's continued storage of nuclear weapons. Other issues involve questions of trust of governments like those of North Korea and Iran. If these nations utilize nuclear weapons it may force the US to reciprocate in kind. In anticipation of this, the US and other nations have implemented 'calculated ambiguity' into their treaties and policies, part of which questions the possible use of nuclear weapons in retaliation to chemical or biological weapons use. Yet at least one of the articles finds doubt in the idea that no first strike against a non-nuclear state can actually prevent an attack on the US or its allies. Also, for the world to stand down from use of nuclear weapons, the United States must de-emphasize nuclear weapons as a facet of its operational strategy. Concludes with a new article by Professor Sagan answering questions of his supporters and detractors. Adapted from the source document.

Argues that the US and the international community should act to ensure the success of constitutional democracy in the world. Partial contents: Challenging noninterference; Intervention rules.