Våren 2007 offentliggjorde USA planerna på att upprätta ett missilförsvar i Polen och Tjeckien som ett skydd mot missilangrepp från Iran. Från Ryssland blev reaktionen mot planerna kraftfull. Retoriken från Moskva påminde om kalla krigets dagar. Vilka är de bakomliggande orsakerna till denna starka reaktion? Syftet med studien är att undersöka vilka orsaker, såväl externa som interna, det är som styr den ryska inställningen. Studien är teorianvändande med teorier inom den politiska realismen som verktyg. Analysen genomförs i två delar där först externa och därefter interna orsaker till motståndet kartläggs. Förklaringen till motståndet inom den externa dimensionen finns i att missilförsvaret med en framtida utbyggnad kan komma att utgöra ett hot mot rysk andraslagsförmåga och därmed hota Rysslands kapacitet till kärnvapenavskräckning. Interna orsaker till motståndet finns i att såväl den ryska makteliten som Rysslands befolkning anser att landet är utsatt för ett hot från USA. Då Ryssland är väl sammanhållet inom fyra avgörande interna områden ges möjligheten för den förda utrikespolitiken. / In the spring of 2007 the United States went public with its plans to build a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic as a protection to missile attacks from Iran. The Russian reaction to the plans was harsh. The Moscow rhetoric reminded of the Cold War days. What are the underlying reasons to this strong reaction? The purpose of this essay is to analyse what reasons there are, both external and domestic, that direct the Russian attitude. The essay uses theories from the political realism as tool. The analysis is done in two parts where first external and then domestic reasons to the attitude are surveyed. The reason to the attitude is in the external dimension to be found in the fact that the missile defence, if in the future extended, may poses a threat to Russian second strike capacity and by that poses a threat to Russian nuclear deterrence capacity. Domestic reasons to the attitude are to be found in the fact that both the ruling political elite in Russia as well as the Russian population believes that the country is subject to threat from the United States. As Russia is well united in four crucial domestic areas, the possibility for the current foreign policy is given.

This research aims to analyze and explore the contemporary strategic narratives within NATO, focusing on objectives, success, and context in relation to nuclear deterrence. Employing a narrative methodology, the thesis has identified and examined the strategic narratives in NATO's official documents. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of NATO's nuclear deterrence strategy, addressing a subject of significant political relevance and timeliness. The findings of the study indicate that NATO's strategic narratives regarding nuclear deterrence are strong when viewed from the perspectives of objectives, success, and context. However, a possible lack of credibility emerges through an indication of a "say-do gap," where there may be a discrepancy between stated intentions and actual actions. Additionally, the research highlights a lack of clarity regarding the target audience for the narrative, contributing to their perception as scattered.

Uppsatsen analyserar om huruvida kärnvapenavskräckning hotar eller skyddar rätten till liv. Genom insamlade pro- och contra-argument skapas en diskussion kring kärnvapenavskräckning där centrala argument identifieras. Argumenten analyseras sedan i en argumentationsanalys samt slutsats utifrån ett rättighetsperspektiv med fokus på rätten till liv. Rätten till liv definieras utifrån General Comment No. 36 (2018) som berör artikel 6 rätten till liv inom den internationella konventionen om de medborgliga och politiska rättigheterna. / The essay analyses whether nuclear deterrence threatens or protects the right to life. By collecting pro- and contra-arguments it has been possible to create a discussion around nuclear deterrence as well as to identify key arguments within the two groups. The central arguments are then analyzed in an argumentation analysis and conclusion from a human rights perspective with a focus on the right to life. The right to life is defined from the General Comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life.

The aim of this thesis is to discuss the ethical issues which arise by nuclear deterrence. I have taken the position that the use of nuclear weapons is morally wrong. Nuclear deterrence is kind of a preventive measure, but not a way of fighting a war. Therefore, I used the ‘just war theory’ as a starting point to formulate analytical questions through which I have interpreted my material. The analytical questions are based on proportionality, utilitarianism, deontology and the ‘Doctrine of double effect’. I have used contemporary material by political scientists which form a symposium where they discussed on the topic of ‘just deterrence’. In my thesis, I argue that the liberty, life and happiness must be defended, but not to any price. I argue that we must see the value life itself has, because if our life, liberty and happiness is threatened, we have nothing to defend. The question that arises is whether there is an ethical approach which can help us understand these questions.