Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the Nautilus Institute's exploration of two inter‐linked but highly contested aspects of the strategic nuclear situation on the Korean peninsula: the complexity and uncertainty associated with US assurances of nuclear extended deterrence to South Korea (and Japan), and the potential contribution of a nuclear‐weapon‐free zone to shifting the current impasse concerning North Korean nuclear weapons. The theoretical inquiry into the current state of nuclear extended deterrence is followed by an examination of the necessity, viability and desirability of reformed versions of nuclear extended deterrence (such as collective deterrence), and of three conceivable generic alternatives to reliance upon nuclear extended deterrence: namely nuclear rejection, nuclear recession, and conventional deterrence (possibly combined with existential nuclear deterrence). A bilateral nuclear‐weapon‐free zone, with the door held open to North Korea to join at a later stage, would act as a circuit‐breaker in the stalemated nuclear confrontation; prefigure a US negative security guarantee to North Korea in a future rapprochement; and reduce ongoing regional anxieties by locking both South Korea and Japan into a legally binding non‐nuclear security posture.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.