Spelling suggestions: "subject:"[een] NUCLEAR WEAPONS"" "subject:"[enn] NUCLEAR WEAPONS""
31 |
A doctrine of 'minimum deterrence'Ritchie, Nick January 2008 (has links)
Yes
|
32 |
Trident decision timelineRitchie, Nick January 2008 (has links)
Yes
|
33 |
Trident and ScotlandRitchie, Nick January 2008 (has links)
Yes
|
34 |
India Pakistan Strategic Relations: The Nuclear DilemmaBluth, Christoph, Mumtaz, U. 15 June 2020 (has links)
No
|
35 |
The Iranian Nuclear Dilemma: How Does the U.S. Respond?Andersen, Corey L. 26 February 2008 (has links)
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran has visibly increased its work towards developing a nuclear program. This is alarming to many because Iran's ambitions for its nuclear program are unclear and whether it is on a quest for nuclear weapons is unknown. The Iranian government is largely anti-West, anti-Israel, and now, with the downfall of Iraq, is in a position to spread its influence throughout the Middle East. This thesis examines the evolution of the Iranian nuclear program, the relationship between the United States and Iran and how this relationship will likely have a significant influence on the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear program. The goal is to assess the current status of the situation and examine the possible policies the United States could implement towards Iran and its nuclear program. / Master of Arts
|
36 |
Return Of An Empire Or Strike Of A Rogue? : Russia Proceeds With Tactical Nuclear WeaponsBiverstedt, Lola January 2016 (has links)
The current political fraction between Russia and the West has led to the breakdown of the cooperative post-Cold War security order. Russia’s dramatic reliance on its tactical nuclear weapons arsenal is of concern for how Moscow might shape its foreign policy. Based on the gap in the existing literature on the role of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW) and regional influence, this paper aims to examine the role of TNWs for Russia’s regional influence by answering the following research question: What changes in the nuclear doctrines, with regards to TNWs, contribute to a nuclear state’s increased regional influence? This thesis uses the theoretical frame of Coercive Diplomacy, with focus on compellence, which provides an alternative explanation to one state’s behavior against another in the pursuit of influence. In order to test the hypothesis, offensive changes in the doctrines, with regard to TNWs, contribute to a nuclear state’s likelihood of increasing its regional influence, this qualitative study examines the cases of Georgia and Armenia. The implementation of the analytical framework on the empirical material occurs through the method of structured focused comparison. The findings indicate that despite Russia’s engagement in compellence against Georgia and Armenia, the cases show very different outcomes.
|
37 |
Nuclear proliferation in protracted conflict regions : a comparative study of South Asia and the Middle EastKhan, Saira. January 1999 (has links)
One of the most critical tasks facing the world in the post-cold war era is to eliminate nuclear proliferation. With the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, the subject of nuclear proliferation has returned to the forefront of international politics. Taking issue with the complacent belief that only a few states unnecessarily jeopardize international peace by acquiring nuclear weapons, I argue that many states in territorial protracted conflict are generally proliferants because of their specific security concerns. Demonstrating how individual and domestic level motivations are not the key determinants of the nuclear choices of the South Asian and Middle Eastern states, I emphasize the role of systemic level motivation, particularly security, in their nuclear decisions. Through a close examination of these states' nuclear weapons choices, I develop a new appraisal of the territorial protracted conflict states' potential to proliferate. While high war-probability has provoked virtually all of these protracted conflict states to seek nuclear deterrent capability and become proliferants, the variations in the type of conflict, regional power structure and geographical proximity have brought about variations in the pace of proliferation among these states. Finally, I expand the implications of this study for IR theory, especially with regard to Realist theory, nuclear deterrence, post-cold war world order, and nuclear arms control treaties. I conclude that the resolution of the roots of regional conflicts will most effectively ensure that more states do not embark on a nuclear weapons program. It is, however, naive to expect the new nuclear states to roll back their weapons programs.
|
38 |
Why international instruments to combat nuclear proliferation succeed or fail a study of the interaction of international and domestic level factors /Jenkins, Bonnie D. January 2006 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Virginia, 2006. / Title from v.1 t.p. (viewed Apr. 20, 2009). "UMI number: 3218417." Includes bibliographical references (p. 582-609). Also issued in print.
|
39 |
Assessing the risk of inadvertent nuclear war between India and Pakistan /Smith, Stephen A. January 2002 (has links) (PDF)
Thesis (M.A. in International Security and Civil-Military Relations)--Naval Postgraduate School, December 2002. / AD-A411 188. Also available online. Includes bibliographical references (p. 83-92).
|
40 |
Towards A Balanced U.S. Nuclear Weapons PolicyMiranda, Cristobal M., Miranda, Cristobal M. January 2016 (has links)
Nuclear weapons remain salient to international security and stability given their continued existence within the strategic context of interstate relations, as well as their continued proliferation to state actors and potentially to non-state actors. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals; however, the U.S and Russia today still have the large majority of the world's nuclear inventory, with thousands of nuclear weapons each and plans to maintain these large stockpiles. The central question of this study is-how does one reconcile the size and continued existence of the U.S. nuclear arsenal with U.S. nonproliferation policy and the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament? This study's primary argument is that a nuclear-armed state can craft a weapons policy involving nuclear posture and force structure that balances the requirements of nuclear deterrence with nuclear nonproliferation objectives and eventual nuclear disarmament, and that the U.S. has imperfectly pursued such a balanced nuclear weapons policy since the end of the Cold War. This study's primary policy recommendations are that the U.S. nuclear arsenal can be reduced further and the U.S. can modify its nuclear posture to limit the role of nuclear weapons; such nuclear weapons policy changes that limit the mission and size of U.S. nuclear forces would demonstrate genuine commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and progress towards nuclear disarmament, while also maintaining a strategic deterrence capability for the foreseeable future. The pursuit of a balanced nuclear weapons policy will allow the U.S. to function as a genuine actor to positively influence the international nuclear environment towards a potentially nuclear-free world. Ultimately, global nuclear disarmament will likely require major developments within the international system, including the solving of the world's major security issues.
|
Page generated in 0.0455 seconds