No First Use and Nuclear Proliferation
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207803300305 |
| Published date | 01 September 1978 |
| Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Author | Lewis A. Dunn |
| Subject Matter | Article |
LEWIS
A.
DUNN
No
first
use
and
nuclear
proliferation
Whether
the
United
States
should
articulate
a
declaratory policy
on
no
first
use
of
nuclear
weapons
has
again
been
the subject
of
considerable
debate
during
the
past
year.
In
particular,
much
at-
tention
has
been
focussed
on the
claimed
impact
of
two
proposals
on
non-proliferation:
first,
a
blanket
renunciation
of
the
first
use
of
nuclear
weapons
in
any
conflict
with
any
nation
and,
secondly,
a
more
limited
renunciation
of
nuclear-weapon
use
against
any
non-nuclear-weapon
state
party
to
the
Non-Proliferation
Treaty
(NPT)
unless
that
state
was
engaged
in armed
conflict
in
concert
with
a
nuclear-weapon
state.
The
major
proliferation-related
argu-
ments
for
and
against
each
of these changes of
past
strategic doc-
trine
and
declaratory
policy
are
summarized
in
tables
I
and
2.1
Tak-
ing
up
first
the
more
inclusive
no-first-use
position
and
then
the
more
limited
renunciation,
the
sets
of
propositions
in
tables
I
and
2
are
discussed.
BLANKET
NO
FIRST
USE
Diffuse
impact
on
perceptions
of
nuclear
weapons'
utility
Diffuse
perceptions
of
the
political-military
utility
of
nuclear
weap-
ons
can
be
expected
to influence
nth
country
incentives
for
acquir-
The author,
on
partial
leave
from
the
Hudson
Institute
where
he
is
project
leader for studies
on
nuclear proliferation,
is
completing
a
book
on
'Life
in
a
Proliferating
World'
for
the
Twentieth
Century Fund.
The
views
expressed
in
this
article are
not
to
be
attributed
to
the
Institute,
its
staff,
its
members,
or
its
contracting
agencies.
i
No-first-use
agreements
have
of
course
been proposed
on
grounds
other
than
their
putative non-proliferation
effects.
This
paper,
however, examines only
the
argu-
ments
related
to
non-proliferation.
Thus,
whether
a
no-first-use
agreement
would
help,
for
example,
to
stabilize
the strategic balance
is
not
considered.
To continue reading
Request your trial