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.

Yes / This briefing paper is the second in a series to be published during 2007 and 2008 as part of the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre¿s programme on Nuclear-Armed Britain: A Critical Examination of Trident Modernisation, Implications and Accountability.

<p>The purpose of this thesis is to explain why states obtain nuclear weapons and the role various</p><p>actors and interests play in the making of states´ nuclear policies. The main questions are as</p><p>follows: (1) What big theories exist concerning states obtaining nuclear weapon and nuclear</p><p>armament in International Relations and what relevance do they have of the post cold-war period?,</p><p>(2) What is the meaning of the perspective of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)?, and (3)Are</p><p>there empirical studies which supports the existence of a MIC in the United States?</p><p>The focus lies on actors and driving forces that are internal to states and it is also important to</p><p>investigate if the theories have relevance for the post 9/11-era. The study uses the method of</p><p>qualitative literature-study with some quantitative segments. It is claimed that states might be</p><p>interested in justifying their behaviour in a morally appealing way and that real reasons may be</p><p>hidden. There are many reasons for states to obtain and keep nuclear weapons and related</p><p>technology (which includes many of the most lucrative elements of the arms industry´s sales).</p><p>Among this reasons are that arms and related technology may be used to influence other states and</p><p>nuclear weapons-construction and modernisation might be used to protect the state from external</p><p>threats, stop unwanted interference from other actors, secure job and gain recognition and prestige</p><p>in world politics. For security reasons states might hold onto their own nuclear weapons and try to</p><p>hinder other actors from getting access to them. The internal actors and driving forces we look at</p><p>are bureaucratic, economical and political, and the MIC-perspective. The military can be said to</p><p>have interests in as much resources and capabilities as possible, which includes advanced</p><p>weaponary such as nuclear weapons and related technologies, at its disposal because of the goal to</p><p>defend the state from all possible threats and for officers career reasons. Much of its influence is</p><p>said to come from its expert knowledge and position and it is said to be especially influential in</p><p>matters of foreign policy, military spending and foreign policy. The major economical actors</p><p>mentioned are big corporations involved in military spending and these have interests in</p><p>maximizing profits. Nuclear weapons making and maintenance and the related areas of missile</p><p>defense and delivering methods for nuclear weapons seem to be areas with high changes of being</p><p>profitable for the involved major companies. The actors wield influence for example through</p><p>lobbying and campaign contributions. An economic driving force claim is that state spending is</p><p>necessary for stimulating the economy and defense spending is easily justified in other ways.</p><p>Political actors and driving forces concerns politicians interest in promoting the interests of</p><p>supporting groups, there are indications that the weapon industry is such a group. Research have</p><p>shown various results about the extent politicians tend to further the interests of supporting groups.</p><p>The MIC-perspective talks about groups with interest in high levels of military spending. Most</p><p>researchers seem to agree that the complex exists but there are different opinions about what actors</p><p>belongs to it and its power on various issues. There is some mention of the core of the complex</p><p>consisting of such internal actors as mentioned above. MIC-related empirical research has been</p><p>conducted and this author finds that the MIC is a relevant analytical tool for the post cold war – and</p><p>9/11 era.</p>

The purpose of this thesis is to explain why states obtain nuclear weapons and the role various actors and interests play in the making of states´ nuclear policies. The main questions are as follows: (1) What big theories exist concerning states obtaining nuclear weapon and nuclear armament in International Relations and what relevance do they have of the post cold-war period?, (2) What is the meaning of the perspective of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)?, and (3)Are there empirical studies which supports the existence of a MIC in the United States? The focus lies on actors and driving forces that are internal to states and it is also important to investigate if the theories have relevance for the post 9/11-era. The study uses the method of qualitative literature-study with some quantitative segments. It is claimed that states might be interested in justifying their behaviour in a morally appealing way and that real reasons may be hidden. There are many reasons for states to obtain and keep nuclear weapons and related technology (which includes many of the most lucrative elements of the arms industry´s sales). Among this reasons are that arms and related technology may be used to influence other states and nuclear weapons-construction and modernisation might be used to protect the state from external threats, stop unwanted interference from other actors, secure job and gain recognition and prestige in world politics. For security reasons states might hold onto their own nuclear weapons and try to hinder other actors from getting access to them. The internal actors and driving forces we look at are bureaucratic, economical and political, and the MIC-perspective. The military can be said to have interests in as much resources and capabilities as possible, which includes advanced weaponary such as nuclear weapons and related technologies, at its disposal because of the goal to defend the state from all possible threats and for officers career reasons. Much of its influence is said to come from its expert knowledge and position and it is said to be especially influential in matters of foreign policy, military spending and foreign policy. The major economical actors mentioned are big corporations involved in military spending and these have interests in maximizing profits. Nuclear weapons making and maintenance and the related areas of missile defense and delivering methods for nuclear weapons seem to be areas with high changes of being profitable for the involved major companies. The actors wield influence for example through lobbying and campaign contributions. An economic driving force claim is that state spending is necessary for stimulating the economy and defense spending is easily justified in other ways. Political actors and driving forces concerns politicians interest in promoting the interests of supporting groups, there are indications that the weapon industry is such a group. Research have shown various results about the extent politicians tend to further the interests of supporting groups. The MIC-perspective talks about groups with interest in high levels of military spending. Most researchers seem to agree that the complex exists but there are different opinions about what actors belongs to it and its power on various issues. There is some mention of the core of the complex consisting of such internal actors as mentioned above. MIC-related empirical research has been conducted and this author finds that the MIC is a relevant analytical tool for the post cold war – and 9/11 era.