Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- Contributors -- Introduction -- Security Assurances: Initial Hypotheses -- The Psychology of Assurance: An Emotional Tale -- The Role of Security Assurances in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime -- Libya, Nuclear Rollback, and the Role of Negative and Positive Security Assurances -- Security Assurances and Iran: Assessment and Re-conceptualization -- Maintaining Japan's Non-Nuclear Identity: The Role of U.S. Security Assurances -- Infusing Commitment with Credibility: The Role of Security Assurances in Cementing the U.S.-ROK Alliance -- Assessing the Role of Security Assurances in Dealing with North Korea -- The United States and Swedish Plans to Build the Bomb, 1945-68 -- The "Model" of Ukrainian Denuclearization -- Conclusions -- Index

Does the extent or lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament affect the health of the nuclear nonproliferation regime? Commentators have long asserted both positive and negative responses to this question as if the answer were self-evident. Given that opposite positions have been advanced with equal conviction, a more systematic analysis is required. This analysis begins by attempting to identify all of the potential arguments that can be made both for and against the hypothesis of a disarmament-nonproliferation linkage. The arguments are grouped in terms of five broader sets of explanatory factors: security, institutions, norms, domestic politics, and psychology. This approach clarifies the various causal microfoundations that could underpin different arguments in the debate as well as the types of empirical tests that would be most relevant for evaluating the "linkage hypothesis." Comparative assessment of the arguments on both sides suggests that signs of commitment to nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states will tend to enhance support for nonproliferation. Because of the multitude of other factors that affect state decisionmaking, however, progress on disarmament will not by itself address all of the challenges to making the nonproliferation regime effective.

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Naval Postgraduate School, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. ; Deterrence strategies involve trying to influence the decision-making of another actor. Because of this, efforts to determine whether to employ a strategy of deterrence or how to implement such a strategy require attempting to forecast what things will influence the other actor and how that influence will be exerted. There are several models or frameworks available that could assist with efforts to anticipate how another actor will be influenced. In practice, the most prominent public debates related to deterrence in the United States have tended to reflect two main approaches. People tend to assume either that the other side will behave like a rational actor or that it will be driven by a unique strategic culture. While both approaches have merit, extensive critiques have revealed that both also have significant limitations. ; U.S. Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC) Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Does the extent or lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament affect the health of the nuclear nonproliferation regime? Commentators have long asserted both positive and negative responses to this question as if the answer were self-evident. Given that opposite positions have been advanced with equal conviction, a more systematic analysis is required. This analysis begins by attempting to identify all of the potential arguments that can be made both for and against the hypothesis of a disarmament-nonproliferation linkage. The arguments are grouped in terms of five broader sets of explanatory factors: security, institutions, norms, domestic politics, and psychology. This approach clarifies the various causal microfoundations that could underpin different arguments in the debate as well as the types of empirical tests that would be most relevant for evaluating the 'linkage hypothesis.' Comparative assessment of the arguments on both sides suggests that signs of commitment to nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states will tend to enhance support for nonproliferation. Because of the multitude of other factors that affect state decisionmaking, however, progress on disarmament will not by itself address all of the challenges to making the nonproliferation regime effective. Adapted from the source document.