The recent developments in negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe mark a watershed in attitudes towards nuclear deterrence and security. On the one side lie all the old beliefs and assumptions about nuclear defence and security that have been common parlance for the last forty years and more. On the other side lies a unique opportunity to develop a new relationship of increased mutual trust between East and West that could ultimately lead to substantial reductions in the world's nuclear arsenal. The object of this thesis is to establish how much information already exists about attitudes towards nuclear deterrence and the processes of attitude change. From there, to extend these boundaries of knowledge in the belief that if we are able to understand more exactly what people think about nuclear deterrence, why they hold these attitudes and how attitudes change then we will be in a better position to ease the transitional stage between one set of attitudes and another. / Barrow and Geraldine S. Cadbury Trust

Bc. Tomáš Pažitný Nuclear latency and the problem of deterrence 2020 Abstract The primary goal of the master's thesis is to uncover the actual impact of latent nuclear deterrence on the decision to avert the conflict. The thesis employs a variety of concepts, including the latent nuclear deterrence, as articulated by Matthew Fuhrmann, to ascertain which one of them plays a vital role in dissuading one country from attacking another one. The influence of respective concepts is examined on the example of two historical case studies, which form the core part of the master's thesis. The first case study presents two crises that occurred in the 1980s between Pakistan as a latent nuclear state and India as the challenging state, eventually dissuaded from the attack. The second case study is devoted to the 1965 crisis between Pakistan as a challenging state and India as a latent nuclear state. This crisis, which eventually led to the war, works as a control case study. The analysis of both cases reveals valuable findings concerning the role of latent nuclear deterrence and nuclear latency in general. Contrary to what would proponents of this weaponless deterrence believe, latent nuclear deterrence was not the central factor when the attack on the latent nuclear state was contemplated. The findings of the master's...

No description available.

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.

Nuclear weapons are considered to be the most destructive military weapons in the modem era. The combination of extensive destruction and the fact that nuclear missiles cannot be stopped makes nuclear weapons a major game changer in international security. When a country manages to weaponize nuclear material and is also able to make a delivery system the balance of power in the region is shifted. The roots of deterrence theory and modem balance of power theory are based on nuclear weapons capabilities between countries. In Southwest Asia, nuclear proliferation is common and has an important influence on the balance of power in the region. The combination of a turbulent history and a threatening environment are suitable for countries to try and develop nuclear weapons in order to overcome a security dilemma. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that nuclear proliferation in Southwest Asia is used as a deterrent against neighboring enemies and not a means to achieve regional dominance. This paper will illustrate this phenomenon through three case studies- Israel, Pakistan, and Iran. Each case will look at the historical evolution, political development, and military/security condition of each country and how each has influenced the decision of its leaders to commit to nuclear proliferation.

Regarding the existence of nuclear weapons, which were never used all over atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a tool of war against civilian or military targets during the Cold War, I try to give an explanation of "armed peace". I consider the question of why the two superpowers (the USA and the USSR) didn't start a "hot war" that would have been more likely nuclear. As an example of the most critical event will serve me Cuban Missile Crisis, with which can be the description of it understood in broader context. The paper points to the interrelations of opposing ideologies that related to atomic weapons have often drawn the same conclusions. I examine the military-strategic value of the atomic bombs which have shaped international relations troughtout the second half of the twentieth century. Besides the military aspects I also mention economic interpretation of the nuclear arms race and economic potential of the USSR and the USA. Why have in the first instance occured one-sided and than gradually overall disarment, reducing the number of nuclear warheads? I try to documented the explanation out of historical events also by using teoretical models.

This thesis takes the initial steps to find what it calls a ‘posture of peace’, a counterpart to what Hobbes refers to as a posture of war (Hobbes 1651/2004: 79)1. A posture of war representsdefensive initiatives that can be interpreted by others as a certain preparation for conflict, and its base definition is used as a template to formulate an initial version of a posture of peace2.While keeping this concept as an overarching theme throughout the thesis explores the concepts of nuclear posture and a credible minimum deterrence (CMD) through the examples of India and Pakistan. While the thesis discusses four different nuclear postures, there really are only two categories, namely the pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear posture. The main examples of pronuclear posture used here is the case of India and Pakistan, two geographical neighbouring Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) who have been experiencing ongoing frictions and conflicts since (and prior to) becoming nuclear powers. On the other side Kazakhstan serves as an example of an anti-nuclear posture and in regards to the nuclear debate a possible empirical example of a posture of peace. In addition to these postures there is also the concept of NonOffensive Defence (NOD), which is more exemplified in the Kazakhstan’s approach to their nuclear situation as well as their more contemporary initiative in collaboration with several other neighbouring states to form the Central Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ). The thesis concludes that while NOD finds little support in pro-nuclear posturing, there is ample space for it over on the ani-nuclear posture side of the spectrum which in addition aligns more with the present interpretation of a posture of peace. Moreover, the CANWFZ initiative appears to be as close a perfect example of a NOD in the present case and as close as this stage of the research will come to observing a posture of peace.

The realm of trust has of late become the subject of a new agenda of research. Withal, as this paper demonstrates, trust has always implicitly been at the core of international relations theory. The object of the research is the transatlantic relationship and the role that trust plays on the field of security, using NATO as the platform. In this connection, at first, the author considers the category of trust in international relations as a whole. A detailed analysis of the phenomenon of trust, its principles and distinctive signs will be conducted. For the further application of the theoretical findings to the case of transatlantic relations, special methodology as exploratory research is elaborated. It develops a multiframework strategy for recognizing signals of trust in a relationship, emphasizing the role of the security dilemma, hedging strategies and reassurance in this manner. The selected research methods are determined by the theoretical basis and the available data for the research. Taking stock of the history of transatlantic relations on the basis of researching literature and using the research findings of the case study, the author estimates the level of trust between the United States and European NATO members during periods of turmoil. The aim is to reveal the causes of such state of...

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 overarching goal of this study is to conduct an investigation of regional perspectives on the impact of Israel's nuclear monopoly on nuclear decisions in the Middle East. This Dissertation addresses the question as to why regional actors have taken divergent nuclear paths relative to Israel's nuclear posture. The point of departure for this inquiry is whether the 'introduction' of Israel's nuclear weapons has ever played a pivotal role in the nuclear decisions and escalation dynamics in the Middle East. In so doing, this study addresses why Israel has maintained a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Within this context, the nuclear decisions are analyzed while employing three specific Independent Variables, namely: conventional balance; alliance reliance; and the perception of the utility of nuclear weapons. The analysis of the Egypt and Iran cases demonstrated layers of common and divergent responses, namely in relation to their perception of conventional, nonconventional, and nuclear deterrence. The dissertation addressed how both countries perceived and reacted to the underlying principles that underpinned Israel's nuclear posture. The main findings of this dissertation serve the logic of comparison between Egypt and Iran. These findings are addressed in terms of: a) the essence of reaction whether it applies to the nuclear posture or nuclear capabilities; b) the mere existence of a nuclear decision; c) the perception of the utility of nuclear weapons in terms of deterrence, compellence, and coercion; d) the difference between the official, semi-official and unofficial rhetoric; e) the significance of the legal reaction. / Doctor of Philosophy / This dissertation addressed two comparative reactions to Israel's nuclear posture, namely Egypt's and Iran's divergent nuclear paths. In so doing, it addressed the nuclear decisions of Egypt and Iran from 1955 to 2021. This dissertation made an effort in investigating how a tacit ally, namely the Shah, perceived Israel's nuclear posture. As analyzed, the literature tends to overlook the story of Iran's reaction under the Shah. Therefore, more research is necessary to decipher the puzzle of why allies feel alarmed or concerned by a nuclear ambition of a close regional partner. An important issue that this dissertation addressed while investigating reactions to Israel's nuclear posture was the delicate issue of decoupling Israel's posture from other established nuclear powers or nuclear aspirants. Within this context, it is central that this study underscores the impacts of the Indian, and Pakistani bombs and the impact of Iraq's nuclear ambition and to make a strong and substantiated case as to why Iran's reaction addressed Israel's posture and not Iraq or India. The same analysis applies to Egypt which witnessed the emergence of another nuclear aspirant in the 1980s, namely Iraq. In the final analysis, the main findings of this dissertation support the argument that comparative regional reactions to Israel's nuclear posture help investigate and test the main assumptions that underpinned opacity. Within this context, future researchers might further analyze the trichotomy of conventional; nonconventional, and nuclear deterrence because regional actors might employ the case of monopoly for explicit or tacit bargaining that fulfills the overarching interest of guaranteeing a robust conventional force. The underlying foundation of this research is to address how regional actors perceive and react to asymmetries in power, resolve, and stake.