|
Extended deterrence garners the US soft power
Nye and Owens 96 [Joseph S. , Jr. dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University William A. former admiral in the United States Navy, Institute of Communication Studies, March/April http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=49&paper=155]
In this setting, the emerging U.S. capabilities suggest leverage with friends similar to what extended nuclear deterrence once offered. The nuclear umbrella provided a cooperative structure, linking the United States in a mutually beneficial way to a wide range of friends, allies, and neutral nations. It was a logical response to the central issue of international relations -- the threat of Soviet aggression. Now the central issue is ambiguity about the type and degree of threats, and the basis for cooperation is the capacity to clarify and cut through that ambiguity.
Deterrence Solves Russian Instability
Deterrence promotes Russian stability
Japan Times 8 [March 24, Lexis]
Nuclear dynamics contribute to the uncertainty. In the Cold War, the U.S. accepted mutual vulnerability with the Soviet Union to create strategic stability. Both superpowers knew that in a crisis each could inflict unacceptable damage on the other; that provided the foundation for stability through mutual deterrence.
Deterrence Solves Asian Stability
Nuclear deterrence promotes Asian stability
CIR 6 [Committee On International Relations, September 14, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2006_hr/060914-transcript.pdf]
I think we are going to have a special obligation in the United States as this problem gets harder—and it will get harder—to demonstrate very clearly that we stand with Japan, that an attack on Japan is a threat to the United States. And attack on the U.S., that our extended nuclear deterrence is resolute. The same with Republic of Korea, despite some of the flack in the relationship right now. It is one reason I am a little concerned that if we were to overfocus on the history issue, for example, we would be sending the wrong messages to Japan at this time and to the region. I have a slightly different take on China’s view of North Korea than my good friend, Kurt Campbell. In an odd way, I think the Chinese are afraid the North Koreans. The Chinese have several million ethnic Koreans of their own right across the border. Instability in North Korea would threaten regime stability inside China. They just don’t want to rock the boat. And we have to make it clear to China that if they don’t rock the boat a little more North Korea is going to start doing it on its own. So there may be some ancillary benefit in terms of tweaking the Japanese side, but I think for the most part the Chinese are most confounded of all about what to do about North Korea because they are basically kind of scared of them. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Rohrabacher, I would agree with Mike. I think—actually, that is what I thought I was saying. I thought that was the case. And the thing that might surprise you is that I think if you ask yourself among a pretty hostile group of folks in northeast Asia, there is a lot of trade and interaction but underneath a lot of suspicion and anxiety. I would say near the top of the hits chart is suspicion and concern between North Korea and China. I think behind the scenes there is a lot of tension and a lot of uncertainty. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a few of those nuclear weapons in North Korea are aimed not just at Japan and United States and South Korea. Maybe a few of them are aimed at China.
Deterrence Solves North Korean Instability
Nuclear deterrence promotes North Korean stability- plan B against regime collapse
Sung-ki 9 [Jung, Staff Writer, Korea Times, December 24, Lexis]
North Korean insistence on retaining its nuclear weapons and being designated a nuclear power makes the ROK-US alliance ever more critical for the security of South Korea and the region, he said. "As a result, I found the ROK-US Joint Vision of the Alliance statement to be a key development. I was especially struck by the US commitment to extended deterrence, including its nuclear umbrella," said the analyst. Bennett said North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's illness early in the year implied that succession could come soon, and the failure of Kim Jong-il to clearly designate a successor suggests that a third-generation Kim family succession could fail. This view was reinforced by North Korea's provocations - its missile launches and nuclear test - in the first half of the year, which apparently stemmed from Kim Jong-Il's deteriorating health and the need to demonstrate his power, he analyzed. "If anyone in the ROK was feeling safe from North Korean nuclear weapons, they should have developed a different perspective after May 25 (the nuclear test), and worried about how the ROK government was going to protect them," the analyst said. "While most experts have focused on Kim Jong-Il's efforts to appear peaceful and cooperative in the second half of this year, I think there have been clear signs even in this period of the need for our alliance, given North Korean instability," he said.
Deterrence Solves India-Pakistan Instability
Deterrence ensures India- Pakistan stability
Grier 2 [Peter, Staff writer, January 4, The Christian Science Monitor, Lexis]
"Both sides now show great cognizance that there are nuclear dangers and that they have to be extremely careful," says George Perkovich, author of a study of India's nuclear program and fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. If not for the knowledge of the nuclear dangers, Indian forces on the border might have already crossed into Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, judge other experts. Thus, for Pakistan, nuclear deterrence has worked, at least for the short term. Whether that continues, and what happens if it does not, remains to be seen. "I know it goes against all nonproliferation theory, but I believe the presence of nuclear weapons [in the region] has actually made things better, for now," says Sumit Ganguly, a South Asia expert at the University of Texas at Austin. The possibility of an uncontrolled India-Pakistan war over Kashmir has long been a nightmare scenario for Western non-proliferation experts. It represents the most likely set of circumstances they can think of that could lead to the use of a nuclear weapon in anger. The human toll of such an attack would be unthinkable. India has more than 1 billion people, and Pakistan nearly 150 million. Just one weapon detonated over Bombay could cause 850,000 casualties, according to a recent study.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
