the nuclear peace and competing explanations share the same status all are

The nuclear peace and competing explanations share

This preview shows page 254 - 255 out of 279 pages.

the nuclear peace and competing explanations share the same status : all are hypotheses, requiring a rerun of the history of the last seventy years without nuclear weapons to see whether war would have broken out. The nuclear peace hypothesis is no less a counterfactual than its rivals.19 It faces the challenge of proving a negative. In these circumstances, faith in the nuclear peace becomes a bet or a matter of trust.20 Moreover, we know that complex and tightly coupled systems like nuclear weapons are doomed to fail eventually, even if the frequency of failure is very low . This is because their complexity and tight coupling don’t allow for anticipating and testing of every possible failure .21 Given this epistemological challenge, which relies ultimately on the trust one puts in one potential cause of peace at the expense of the others and on the expected timing of nuclear versus non-nuclear disasters, at least one question arises: is seventy years a high enough standard of evidence for us to surrender our fate to nuclear weapons forever?22 Multiple factors complicate nuclear deterrence Lyon 15 (Dr Rod Lyon is a Fellow - International Strategy. Rod was most recently a Senior Analyst with ASPI. He has previously lectured in International Relations at the University of Queensland where he taught courses on conflict, international security, and civil-military relations. His research interests focus on a range of problems associated with global security, nuclear strategy and Australian security. He previously worked in the Strategic Analysis Branch of the Office of National Assessments between 1985 and 1996. As a Fulbright scholar in 2004, he was a visiting research fellow at Georgetown University in Washington DC, researching a project on the future of security partnerships in the post- September 11 environment. He was appointed to the National Consultative Committee on International Security Issues in April 2005. “The New Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence” 7/3/15 )///CW With nuclear modernisation programs under way across a range of countries, Russia asserting its right to deploy nuclear weapons in the Crimea , NATO reviewing the role of nuclear weapons in the alliance, and a recent report in the US arguing for a more versatile arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons , it’s clear the world’s revisiting an old problem: how to build effective nuclear deterrence arrangements. Since the end of the Cold War, thinking about deterrence issues has been mainly confined to the academic and think-tank world. But policymakers are now having to re-engage with those issues. And the problem has a new twist: we no longer enjoy the luxury of a bipolar world . Indeed, as Therese Delpech observed in her RAND monograph Nuclear deterrence in the 21st century, nowadays ‘the actors are more diverse, more opaque, and sometimes more reckless’ .
Image of page 254
Image of page 255

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 279 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • public health surveillance

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture