Search results

THE current drive for nuclear disarmament requires a graduated series of steps combining commitments of intent with hard reductions in the types and numbers of weapons possessed by nuclear-armed states. Even though little has been discussed in the public realm in the US about the nature of low-level deterrence, there is already considerable opposition to deep cuts. Some analysts have warned that any reductions below 1,700 warheads will leave the Russians with an opportunity to exercise their "immense advantage" in conventional weapons. Some have urged the US government to retain a posture of "calculated ambiguity" that would leave open the possibility of nuclear use, while others have argued for a shift to "minimum deterrence" as a precursor to disarmament, contending that both deep cuts and "no first use" (NFU) are viable. This debate between the conservatives and the minimizers is critical to the future prospects of disarmament. Yet little has been done to examine the intellectual foundations of the opposing perspectives.

THE current drive for nuclear disarmament requires a graduated series of steps combining commitments of intent with hard reductions in the types and numbers of weapons possessed by nuclear-armed states. Even though little has been discussed in the public realm in the US about the nature of low-level deterrence, there is already considerable opposition to deep cuts. Some analysts have warned that any reductions below 1,700 warheads will leave the Russians with an opportunity to exercise their "immense advantage" in conventional weapons. Some have urged the US government to retain a posture of "calculated ambiguity" that would leave open the possibility of nuclear use, while others have argued for a shift to "minimum deterrence" as a precursor to disarmament, contending that both deep cuts and "no first use" (NFU) are viable. This debate between the conservatives and the minimizers is critical to the future prospects of disarmament. Yet little has been done to examine the intellectual foundations of the opposing perspectives.