DMac
16th December 2010, 07:24 AM
I found a PDF copy of this Foreign Affairs magazine article and thought I would share it.
(original article, subscription required)
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy)
By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press
March/April 2006
Free Copy: PDF Here (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf)
snip
This article makes three empirical claims. First, the strategic nuclear balance
has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and the United States
now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.2 Second, the shift in the balance of
power has two primary sources: the decline of the Russian nuclear arsenal and
the steady growth in U.S. nuclear capabilities. Third, the trajectory of nuclear
developments suggests that the nuclear balance will shift further in favor of
the United States in the coming years. Russia and China will face tremendous
incentives to reestablish mutual assured destruction, but doing so will require
substantial sums of money and years of sustained effort. If these states want to
reestablish a robust strategic deterrent, they will have to overcome current U.S.
capabilities, planned improvements to the U.S. arsenal, and future developments
being considered by the United States. U.S. nuclear primacy may last a
decade or more.
Foreign Affairs, as most of you know, is the mouthpiece rag for the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The Project for a New American Century, which called for the new Pearl Harbor (911), was a CFR OP from the get go.
When these evil bastards talk of Nuclear Primacy, I listen. If the Koreas go hot - all hell could break loose, which is why I was interested in discussing/reading some analysis on the somewhat quietly pursued US nuclear primacy.
(original article, subscription required)
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy)
By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press
March/April 2006
Free Copy: PDF Here (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf)
snip
This article makes three empirical claims. First, the strategic nuclear balance
has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and the United States
now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.2 Second, the shift in the balance of
power has two primary sources: the decline of the Russian nuclear arsenal and
the steady growth in U.S. nuclear capabilities. Third, the trajectory of nuclear
developments suggests that the nuclear balance will shift further in favor of
the United States in the coming years. Russia and China will face tremendous
incentives to reestablish mutual assured destruction, but doing so will require
substantial sums of money and years of sustained effort. If these states want to
reestablish a robust strategic deterrent, they will have to overcome current U.S.
capabilities, planned improvements to the U.S. arsenal, and future developments
being considered by the United States. U.S. nuclear primacy may last a
decade or more.
Foreign Affairs, as most of you know, is the mouthpiece rag for the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The Project for a New American Century, which called for the new Pearl Harbor (911), was a CFR OP from the get go.
When these evil bastards talk of Nuclear Primacy, I listen. If the Koreas go hot - all hell could break loose, which is why I was interested in discussing/reading some analysis on the somewhat quietly pursued US nuclear primacy.