During the cold war, the United States made use of nuclear weapons so as to weaken the attack from the Soviet Union and its counterparts. The role of those nuclear weapons in the United States started disappearing in the 1990s. Afterward, the national security of the United Nations started receiving some threats, whereby the administration decided to change from its deterrence strategy to tailored deterrence. This was meant to face different groups differently such as rogue powers, networks of all the terrorists, as well as all the surrounding peer competitors1. During the cold war, the United States made some extra efforts to modify and tailor its nuclear doctrines, employment policies of their arms, and the whole structure.
This was done to increase the credibility of these weapons. All sorts of targets that were likely to be threatened were identified so as to enable the United States administration to adjust its war plans, and put up the right structure which would be strong to oppose the threats2.
The tailored deterrence was explicitly made to ensure that all the United States nuclear weapons would be used to attack several nations. The United Nations had suspected that a number of nations might have gone to an extent of developing both chemical and biological weapons for fighting back the nuclear weapons. That new policy was regarded to determine those who will impose the threats than how it will be fought back.
The two nations which were feared most to pose a great challenge to the united nation were the Soviet Union and Russia. Massive destruction was expected from these two nations. The Soviet threat was considered to have dominated the United States defense mechanism. For the United States to face the soviet challenge the nuclear forces were sized up, the numbers and types of weapons to be deployed by the united nation were also determined.
There was also an argument that the United States should always maintain a credible nuclear deterrent which would enable it to fight back any emergence of a Russian threat3. The United States was also advised to have an ability of a nuclear policy and force a position that would enable it to respond strongly to any threat whether biological or chemical from the observed increasing number of potential nations.
The United States promised never to plan, size, or maintain its nuclear forces when it was giving out the results of its nuclear posture review in the year 2002. This was a result of the fact that the United States and Russia were never seen again as adversaries. The United States insisted that nuclear weapons are there to increase the credibility of cubing several types of threats such as arms which can cause mass destruction to their state. Several arguments were raised against the United States that the kind of weapons it used in the 1990s are the same types of weapons they were using in early 20004. United Nations emphasized that it would deploy the tailored deterrence strategy whereby its nuclear weapons would be made to target a specific capability of the most suspected adversaries to emerge.
Up to now several discussions concerning the United Nations nuclear weapons policy have been brought forward. These are focused on determining the number and the type of weapons which United Nations should use while implementing its nuclear strategy of deterrent5. There is also an argument whether the United Nations should continue to design and develop new types of nuclear warheads to be used in the future. The United States national security policy is the one expected to give the green light about the role of the arsenal.
Reference list
Donald, Edwin. 2001. America recommitted: a superpower assesses its role in a turbulent. University press.
Hook, Steven and John Spanier. 2009. America foreign policy since world war 11. CQ press.
Footnotes
- Hook, Steven, and John Spanier. 2009. American foreign policy since world war 11. CQ Press.
- Donald, Edwin. 2001. America recommitted: a superpower assesses its role in a turbulent. University press.
- ibid 1.
- ibid 2.
- ibid 3.