Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Questioning the Holy Trinity: why the US nuclear triad still makes sense|
|Authors:||Futter, Andrew J.|
Williams, Heather W.
|Publisher:||Taylor & Francis (Routledge)|
|Citation:||Comparative Strategy, 2016, 35 (4), pp. 246-259|
|Abstract:||Despite renewed enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament, a contemporary security environment far removed from that of the Cold War, and increasing budgetary pressures at home, US interests continue to be best served by retaining a triad of nuclear forces. While options for a reduced force structure may appear to offer short-term political and economic expediency, in the long run a three-legged deterrent - possibly consisting of less delivery vehicles, operational warheads and even potentially de-alerted forces - represents the best way to balance the competing requirements of contemporary and future US nuclear policy. Indeed, it may be that retaining the triad provides the most realistic method of re-establishing US-Russia strategic stability, and the most credible basis for advancing the drive for global nuclear reductions, strengthening global nuclear security, and even working towards nuclear abolition.|
|Embargo on file until:||2-May-2018|
|Rights:||Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis. Deposited with reference to the publisher’s open access archiving policy.|
|Description:||The file associated with this record is under an 18 month embargo from publication in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Politics and International Relations|
Files in This Item:
|Futter-Williams.Questioning the Holy Nuclear Trinity.pdf||Post-review (final submitted)||398.26 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.