nuclear weapons: from the cold war to the present dr. adam b. lowther research faculty air force...

Nuclear Weapons: From the Cold War to the Present

Dr. Adam B. Lowther

Research Faculty

Air Force Research Institute

The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the Air Force Research Institute

Develop America's Airmen Today ... for Tomorrow

Air University: The Intellectual and Leadership Center of the Air ForceFly – Fight – Win 2

The Atom Bomb

The Manhattan Project (1939-1946)



Hiroshima and Nagasaki



Continued

Video 1 Video 2



Schelling v. Kahn

V.

Counter-force v. Counter-value



Deterrence

• Deterrence: The prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counter-action.—DoD

• “Deterrence, on the other hand, involves preventing an action that has not yet materialized from occurring in the first place.”—Byman, Waxman, and Larson



Dissuasion

• “This report defines dissuasion as actions taken to increase the target’s perception of the anticipated costs and/or decrease its perception of the likely benefits from developing, expanding, or otherwise undesirable from a US perspective.”—Krepinevich and Martinage

• “Dissuasion is the ‘flip side’ of the popular recommendation that the U.S. strategic force choices be informed by the expectation that U.S. restraint would inspire opponents’ restraint, a la the action-reaction model. …With dissuasion, the contention is that in some cases active U.S. acquisition policies rather than inaction will discourage opponents from competition…”—Payne



Denial

• “The fear of being captured or killed may serve as a punitive threat, and the expectation of serious operational challenges with the prospect of mission failure may lead an opponent to another course, or to postpone its action until success seems more likely—i.e., deterrence by denial.”—Payne

• “Denying the target the possibility of achieving benefits can compel abandonment of only those specific interests.”—Pape



Threat

• “The power to hurt.”—Schelling• “An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or

damage.”—Webster



Compellence

• “Compellence involves attempts to reverse an action that has already occurred or to otherwise overturn the status quo, such as evicting an aggressor from territory it has just conquered or convincing a proliferating state to abandon its existing nuclear weapons program.”—Byman, Waxman, and Larson

• “The threat that compels rather than deters often requires that the punishment be administered until the other acts, rather than if he acts.”--Schelling



Shaping Model

DissuasionDenial

Threat

Compellence

Public Diplomacy NMD Assassination

Invasion

Nuclear StrikeCyber

Precision StrikePossible Examples



Means

DissuasionDenial

Threat

Compellence

Global Situational Awareness

ISR/Spacelift

Strategic Communication

Information Operations

Active and Passive Defense

Force Projection

Air Refueling and Airlift

Global Strike

Strategic Attack, Special Operations, Air Refueling

Counter air, land, sea, and space



Abolitionists

• The Cold War is over. The United States must reduce and eliminate its nuclear arsenal.

• Terrorism is the real threat facing the United States, not nuclear war.

• As long as there are nuclear weapons there is a threat of accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to war, and proliferation.

• Conventional PGMs can accomplish the same objectives as nuclear weapons.

• 1,000 is enough.



Modernizers

• Every President since George H. W. Bush has revised American nuclear weapons policy (START, SORT, de-alerting bombers, etc…)

• 1991—24,000

• 2009—5,400

• 2010—2,200-1,700

• Terrorism is the most recent threat, but not a threat to sovereignty.

• There has never EVER been an accidental detonation, nuclear war from miscalculation, or transfer of nuclear weapons.

• Conventional weapons do not achieve the same psychological effect as nuclear weapons.

• Nuclear weapons cause their owners to become risk averse, not risk acceptant. (India v. Pakistan)

• No nuclear powers have ever fought one another.

• Nuclear weapons are inanimate objects; they have no moral standing.



Dr. Strangelove

Video

nuclear weapons: from the cold war to the present dr. adam b. lowther research faculty air force...

Documents

tomorrow air university

air force fly fight

leadership center

americas airmen

video slide

nagasaki slide

larson slide

pape slide