Nuclear Posture and Compellence

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the assumption in much of the literature on nuclear deterrence?

Nuclear weapons deter both nuclear and conventional conflict (correct)
Nuclear weapons do not deter any kind of conflict
Nuclear weapons only deter nuclear conflict
Nuclear weapons only deter conventional conflict

What is the main difference between regional nuclear powers and the US-USSR in terms of their nuclear forces?

The number of nuclear weapons they possess
The geostrategic situation of their nuclear forces
The type of nuclear weapons they possess
The financial and technical limits of their nuclear forces (correct)

What is the focus of Narang's research on regional nuclear powers?

How to allocate nuclear forces for deterrence against both conventional and nuclear opponents (correct)
How to allocate nuclear forces for deterrence against conventional opponents
How to reduce nuclear arsenals for regional stability
How to configure nuclear capabilities for maximum deterrence

Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of regional nuclear powers?

They have thousands of nuclear warheads (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the central question of Narang's research?

What kind of nuclear force deters conventional conflict with both conventional and nuclear opponents? (D) Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary factor that distinguishes different nuclear postures?

The primary envisioned employment (C) Signup and view all the answers

According to Narang, what is the consequence of having a catalytic posture?

It renders the threat of nuclear use very low in most realistic conventional scenarios (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the goal of an assured retaliation posture?

To deter nuclear use (A) Signup and view all the answers

What is the effect of asymmetric escalation on the space for conflict?

It compresses the space for conflict (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the relationship between a state's nuclear posture and the credibility of its threat to use nuclear weapons?

A state's nuclear posture determines the credibility of its threat to use nuclear weapons (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the role of third-party intervention in a catalytic posture?

It depends on the chance of third-party intervention (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the concept of 'general nuclear compellence' according to Anderson et al?

The use of nuclear weapons to coerce an adversary into taking a specific action (C) Signup and view all the answers

According to Narang 2015, what drives states' choice of nuclear postures?

The internal politics and civil-military relations of the state (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is the 'stability-instability paradox' in the context of deterrence theory?

A situation where a state's nuclear arsenal makes it less likely to be attacked by another state, but more likely to engage in conventional conflicts (D) Signup and view all the answers

What is the main difference between 'nuclear posture' and 'nuclear strategy'?

Nuclear posture refers to the overall nuclear policy of a state, while nuclear strategy refers to the specific plans for its use (C) Signup and view all the answers

What is 'existential deterrence'?

The concept that the mere existence of nuclear weapons is enough to deter an adversary from taking any action (A) Signup and view all the answers

What is the main goal of 'immediate compellence'?

To coerce an adversary into taking a specific action (C) Signup and view all the answers

What is the military imbalance between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and how does it affect Israel's security situation?

The Arab states exceed Israel's military capabilities nearly tenfold and more than double Israel's military spending, leading to a 'grim security situation' for Israel. Signup and view all the answers

What kind of security guarantees did Israel repeatedly request from Washington, and what was the response?

Israel requested formal security guarantees akin to those extended to NATO allies, but was regularly turned down. Signup and view all the answers

What public statement did President Kennedy make about the US commitment to Israel's security, and what did it signify?

President Kennedy publicly stated that the US had a 'deep commitment to the security of Israel', signifying a symbolic but non-binding commitment. Signup and view all the answers

How did Israel's nuclearization affect the risks of nuclear escalation in the Middle East?

It raised the risks of nuclear escalation in the Middle East if Washington maintained its standoffish position and Israel were left on its own. Signup and view all the answers

What was the primary concern of the United States regarding Israel's security?

The maintenance of a stable, US-friendly Middle East. Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the increased material commitments to Israeli security by the United States?

Peace with Egypt followed, with Nasser reportedly alluding to the importance of nuclear weapons in his decision to improve relations with Israel. Signup and view all the answers

By what year was Israel widely considered a nuclear-weapons state?

May 1967 Signup and view all the answers

How did the United States' position on Israel's security change over time?

The US rapidly increased its material commitments to Israeli security, moving away from a previously 'equidistant' position. Signup and view all the answers

According to historian Avner Cohen, what was the primary driver of the change in US security commitment to Israel?

Israeli nuclear acquisition Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards are hidden until you start studying

Study Notes

General Compellence and Nuclear Strategies

The typology of nuclear strategies is shaped by U.S. policies and debates during the Cold War.
Understanding nuclear postures of regional powers is crucial for analyzing their potential for deterrence in conflicts.
Central question: What type of nuclear force effectively deters both conventional and nuclear threats?
Assumptions exist that nuclear weapons deter both nuclear and conventional conflicts, but this is debated among scholars.

Importance of Regional Nuclear Powers

Regional nuclear powers, like China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Africa, maintain independent forces of fewer than several hundred warheads.
Unlike superpowers, these states face financial and technical limitations, forcing them to strategically allocate their nuclear capabilities.
These nations have learned from the U.S.-Soviet experiences, enabling a more tailored approach to their deterrence strategies.

Nuclear Posture and Deterrence

Nuclear posture refers to how a state plans to use its nuclear capability and is defined by the intended purpose of deployment.
Different nuclear postures create varying thresholds for conflict and credibility of nuclear threats.

Identified Nuclear Postures

Catalytic Posture: Low likelihood of nuclear use; relies on third-party intervention; provides minimal deterrent against high-intensity conflict.
Assured Retaliation: Aims to deter nuclear engagement but may not effectively prevent conventional attacks.
Asymmetric Escalation: Compresses conflict space; limited conventional actions may quickly lead to nuclear engagement.

Key Concepts

Existential Deterrence: The notion that the mere possession of nuclear weapons deters aggression.
Stability-Instability Paradox: A situation where overall stability exists due to nuclear deterrence, but lower-level conflicts may arise.
General Compellence vs. Immediate Deterrence: General compellence involves using nuclear threats to influence a state's behavior, while immediate deterrence focuses on preventing specific aggressive actions.

Findings and Discussions

The choice of nuclear posture is driven by a state's strategic goals and the nature of its regional threats.
The relationship between nuclear posture, force balance, interests, and nuclear danger is complex and requires nuanced analysis.
Debate exists on the applicability of Narang’s framework to states like Iran and North Korea, which may have different strategic considerations.

U.S. Commitment to Israeli Security

Regional imbalances in power often favor adversarial states against Israel, which has led to Israeli nuclearization.
The U.S. historically provided material support to Israel, weighed by concerns of nuclear reliance.
Israeli nuclear capabilities altered U.S. security commitments, prompting deeper involvement in the region during conflicts.

Key Terms Review

Command and Control: Systems managing nuclear weapons and decision-making authority.
Civil-Military Relations: The interplay between civilian government and military authority in nuclear strategy.
Causation vs. Correlation: Understanding the distinction between direct causes of state behavior versus coincidental relationships.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.