Q&A
Detlef Waechter
{
"authors": [
"Detlef Waechter"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Thinking Beyond Theories: Concrete Proposals to Make NATO's Future Nuclear Policy Work
As NATO debates its future nuclear policy, it should focus on concrete measures to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in the medium term and avoid abstract debates over complete disarmament or the need to keep nuclear weapons indefinitely.
Published on Apr 8, 2011
With NATO again debating its future nuclear policy—including the role of its tactical nuclear forces—it should focus on concrete measures to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in the medium term and avoid abstract debates over complete disarmament or the need to keep nuclear weapons indefinitely. Policy makers should seriously consider a fuller range of options to develop a credible nuclear deterrent and to explore Russia’s interest in reducing short-range nuclear forces alongside other categories of weapons. Although quick breakthroughs on a new round of arms control arrangements are highly unlikely, it is worth making a concerted effort to reach an agreement on NATO’s nuclear posture before the next NATO summit in 2012.
At its most recent summit in Lisbon last November, NATO’s members tasked the North Atlantic Council—the principal decision-making body—with a general review of the Alliance’s “overall defence and deterrence posture.” Rather than focusing specifically on nuclear issues—which many observers had sought—this overall posture review will look at the interconnections of nuclear weapons, missile defense, and conventional capabilities.
As the Council undertakes this review, it must approach its work carefully. Otherwise, thorny nuclear issues could revive the Alliance’s fierce pre-Lisbon dispute—and derail an important opportunity to move toward nuclear disarmament while maintaining credible nuclear deterrence in a nuclear-armed world. Specifically, NATO should avoid theoretical debates about disarmament, the principles of deterrence, or the potential strategic effects of European anti-ballistic missile defense.
Instead, NATO should focus its efforts on developing a concrete nuclear posture. Its nuclear assets are aging. Disarmament by default is not a sound option for a serious and coherent military alliance. NATO must carefully examine whether the present posture is technologically, financially, and politically sustainable and, if not, what changes are necessary to guarantee credible deterrent capabilities.
About the Author
Detlef Waechter
Former Visiting Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Waechter is a visiting scholar in Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program, where his research focuses on NATO, nuclear, security and disarmament policy.
- Defining NATO's Future Role
- Why NATO Is on the Right TrackOther
Detlef Waechter
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- The Middle Power Moment?Collection
The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.
Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?
- Can Mullin Revive FEMA?Commentary
Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.
Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh
- Europe’s New Industrial Policy Can Learn From U.S. MistakesCommentary
Although the IAA often differs from the IRA, European policymakers can still take note of the U.S. act’s shortcomings.
Milo McBride
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
