Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO /

"NATO has been a "nuclear" alliance since its inception. Nuclear weapons have served the dual purpose of being part of NATO military planning as well as being central to the Alliance's deterrence strategy. For over 4 decades, NATO allies sought to find conventional and nuclear forces, doctrines, and agreed strategies that linked the defense of Europe to that of the United States. Still, in light of the evolving security situation, the Alliance must now consider the role and future of tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs). Two clear conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, in the more than 2 decades since the end of the Cold War, the problem itself -- that is, the question of what to do with weapons designed in a previous century for the possibility of a World War III against a military alliance that no longer exists -- is understudied, both inside and outside of government. Tactical weapons, although less awesome than their strategic siblings, carry significant security and political risks, and they have not received the attention that is commensurate to their importance. Second, it is clear that whatever the future of these arms, the status quo is unacceptable. It is past the time for NATO to make more resolute decisions, find a coherent strategy, and formulate more definite plans about its nuclear status. Consequently, decisions about the role of nuclear weapons within the Alliance and the associated supporting analysis are fundamental to the future identity of NATO. At the Lisbon Summit in Portugal in November 2010, the Alliance agreed to conduct the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review (DDPR). This effort is designed to answer these difficult questions prior to the upcoming NATO Summit in May 2012. The United States and its closest allies must define future threats and, in doing so, clarify NATO's identity, purpose, and corresponding force requirements. So far, NATO remains a "nuclear alliance," but it is increasingly hard to define what that means."--Publisher's website"April 2012."Includes bibliographical references.Pt. I. The historical context of tactical nuclear weapons. The historical context / Richard Weitz -- Tactical nuclear weapons in NATO and beyond : a historical and thematic examination / Paul Schulte -- U.S. nuclear weapons policy and policymaking : the Asian experience / Elbridge A. Colby -- Pt. II. Russian perspectives on tactical nuclear weapons. Russian perspectives on tactical nuclear weapons / George E. Hudson -- Russian doctrine on tactical nuclear weapons : contexts, prisms, and connections / Jacob W. Kipp -- Aspects of the current Russian perspective on tactical nuclear weapons / Leonid Polyakov -- Influences on Russian policy and possibilities for reduction in non-strategic nuclear weapons / George E. Hudson and Evgeny Buzhinski -- Russian perspectives on non-strategic nuclear weapons / Nikolai Sokov -- Pt. III. European perspectives. Introduction of European policies and opinions relating to tactical nuclear weapons / Douglas Stuart -- The role and place of tactical nuclear weapons : a NATO perspective / Simon Lunn -- European and German perspectives / Götz Neuneck -- European perspectives / Paolo Foradori -- Europe, NATO's tactical nuclear conundrum, and public debate : be careful what you wish for / Nick Childs -- Pt. IV. American perspectives. American perspectives on tactical nuclear weapons / James A. Blackwell -- The role of non-strategic nuclear weapons : an American perspective / Jeffrey A. Larsen -- NATO's nuclear debate : the broader strategic context / Leo Michel -- Role of nuclear weapons in NATO's Deterrence and Defense Posture Review : prospects for change / Guy B. Roberts -- Pt. V. Arms control as an option. Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO : arms control as an option / James M. Smith -- Arms control options for non-strategic nuclear weapons / Steven Pifer -- Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO : a conventional arms control perspective / Dorn Crawford -- Arms control after START / Malcolm Chalmers -- The conventional and nuclear nexus in Europe / Jeffrey D. McCausland -- Pt. VI. Conclusion. Summing up and issues for the future / Tom Nichols, Douglas Stuart, and Jeffrey D. McCausland."NATO has been a "nuclear" alliance since its inception. Nuclear weapons have served the dual purpose of being part of NATO military planning as well as being central to the Alliance's deterrence strategy. For over 4 decades, NATO allies sought to find conventional and nuclear forces, doctrines, and agreed strategies that linked the defense of Europe to that of the United States. Still, in light of the evolving security situation, the Alliance must now consider the role and future of tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs). Two clear conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, in the more than 2 decades since the end of the Cold War, the problem itself -- that is, the question of what to do with weapons designed in a previous century for the possibility of a World War III against a military alliance that no longer exists -- is understudied, both inside and outside of government. Tactical weapons, although less awesome than their strategic siblings, carry significant security and political risks, and they have not received the attention that is commensurate to their importance. Second, it is clear that whatever the future of these arms, the status quo is unacceptable. It is past the time for NATO to make more resolute decisions, find a coherent strategy, and formulate more definite plans about its nuclear status. Consequently, decisions about the role of nuclear weapons within the Alliance and the associated supporting analysis are fundamental to the future identity of NATO. At the Lisbon Summit in Portugal in November 2010, the Alliance agreed to conduct the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review (DDPR). This effort is designed to answer these difficult questions prior to the upcoming NATO Summit in May 2012. The United States and its closest allies must define future threats and, in doing so, clarify NATO's identity, purpose, and corresponding force requirements. So far, NATO remains a "nuclear alliance," but it is increasingly hard to define what that means."--Publisher's websiteMode of access: Internet