Myassignment.live is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university
The aim of the following report is to present the ideas of the ways how the nuclear deterrence has changed over the years. In the 21st century it has gained lots of new strategies in the contemporary times. This is why countries often look to make themselves more secure with the help of nuclear weapons. It is of huge importance to use this in the best ways so the countries having nuclear power can keep their place in the international matters. This will be helpful for them because many of their enemies attempt to find ways by which they can make proper attacks on their adversaries (Miller, 2014).
The main themes and meaning of nuclear deterrence should be clarified at first. This is one of the most important strategies that would prevent war. In this complicated international scenario, most of the powerful countries have often opted for using their enemies to terrify and get their claims (Miller, 2014). Sometimes, situations have worsened and countries have faced wars against each other even few decades ago. However, the scenario has completely changed over the times. Almost all the states using nuclear weapons have opted for this strategy so they can stop war in the international scenario. States will not opt to apply the nuclear weapons because they are very much aware that it will cause their destruction as well.
The United Nations had been established after the Second World War to make sure that such world wars would not happen again in the future (Payne, 2015) Despite that many countries have gained nuclear power because of their developments in science and technology. Many times it has been questions if science is a boon or a bane. The answer of that question is still very much debatable (Lieber & Press, 2017).. In this scenario, nuclear countries often take the measure of showing their nuclear power and posing them a warning so other powers do not get engaged in war. Their main purpose is to maintain peaceful relations through arbitrative politics and making third world countries secure from devastation and damages (Miller, 2014).
Therefore, nuclear deterrence in the 21st century is barely a security measure indeed. This will help people from all over the world to stay safe. Countries will have to consider the fact that war only destroys the resources and they will have to take the proper actions for the betterments of the situations regarding conflicts. The powerful countries have been changing their strategies so they can take the proper measures to stop these issues (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014). In the current scenario, it is very much crucial that all countries to tighten up their securities to prevent terrorist attacks. Countries like USA and Russia are well equipped with nuclear weapons and this is why international terrorists always have a fear regarding attacking these countries since they know they will face the retaliations. In this essay, the changing strategies of the nuclear deterrence will be discussed properly.
Nuclear deterrence is a very widely debated subject all over the world. Mainly the powerful countries that have strong nuclear weapons at their disposal will look to implement some strategies so they can stop the wars (Payne, 2015). After the Second World War, the world has gone through several changes during different times. One of those periods was the era of cold war. This cold war did not have any forceful face to face war situation but it depended on the foreign policies between the two most powerful nations of the world- United States of America (USA) and United States of Soviet Russia (USSR).
The military strategies taken up by these two most powerful states of the world have evolved. The diplomatic relationship has worked as the key to maintain peace all over the world. Many security threats have come up within the last few decades (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014). It has been aggravated especially after 9/11 attacks at New York by Al-Qaeda terrorist group in the year 2001. After this incident, all the big nd major powerful countries have increased their security system so they cannot afford to let another event of 9/11 happen. Therefore, it has become of huge importance to note that powerful countries will have to strengthen their security programs with the help of nuclear weapons. The first use of nuclear bombs by USA on two cities of Japan named Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Payne, 2015).
Therefore, this attack did nothing but destroy the lives of numerous common civilians due to this bombing (Lieber & Press, 2017). This is why countries must take some measures so they can ensure they will be able to protect the lives of their common people. In India, many instances have taken place regarding terrorism as well. In the last decade, many such incidents have taken place in places like London, Paris, Belgium and other places at Europe including USA as well. Therefore, it is quite clear that no country is safe from the hands of terrorism nowadays. The instance of civil wars in countries like Syria is also a very important factor in this topic (Payne, 2015).
Therefore, it is quite apparent that international politics has become quite a complicated manner nowadays. Strong and powerful countries should come up to establish peace. The prior role should be played by United Nations and its permanent security members like United Kingdom, United States of America, France, Russia and China (United Nations Security Council). The United Nations has also urged the powerful countries to refrain from nuclear wars as much as they can. They believe that this world has been created with much toil by people from various spheres (Lieber & Press, 2017). If nuclear war takes place, it will surely destroy the lives of millions of people. Therefore, all these countries should be using their nuclear power to threaten the potential terrorist groups to stop the wars (Russett, 2015).
Nuclear deterrence has become a very crucial phenomenon in the current times because countries make some strategies that are not limited to making strategies or strategic thinking. The use of the nuclear weapons continues to grow it will endanger the entire world. The attention of the global leaders will be to use this nuclear deterrence for a useful purpose. It has also been argued that the quality of the nuclear deterrence has been use to pacify the people around the world. This is how the world leaders would like to maintain the peace among themselves. So, proper strategies will have to be made by the countries and their diplomatic leaders so they can clarify their purposes and progress towards their goal. Political factors are very much important in this scenario (Russett, 2015). The countries and their defense ministers should think of some ways with collaboration that will cater to the needs of the moment. One important part to employ the nuclear deterrence strategies based on the reports of respective intelligence bureaus. Power is a very crucial factor in this paper for a proper understanding of taking the proper measures. In relation to the International Relations theory, it can be argued that the nuclear deterrence has been considered as a very strong measure to stop the wars. This concept of nuclear theory is regarded more as an ideology than a theory. The concept of war had completely changed after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in 1945. The use of nuclear weapons was headlined. Once the countries get to know of probable upcoming conditions in the international scenario, they will thrive to make their proper strategies regarding the using of nuclear weapons (Holmes, 2016).
The art of creating power should be managed by the countries in the complicated political scenario. They must understand the balance of power and mix it with the art of creation. Only then they can take some successful measures indeed. When powerful countries realize they have been cornered by their adversaries by the use of proper strategies, they must make sure that they are able to make the most of using forceful strategies other than the diplomatic ideas. They must be able to implement some strategies that will surely be helpful for them like military maneuvers and tactics for gaining back their territories (Holmes, 2016). This factor is basically not some violence i.e. being used in a random manner. The usage of organized force strategies will be helpful for those countries to insert their power in the best ways. Most times most necessary information is manipulated by some forces in the current times (Bringsjord et al. 2014). Therefore, this needs to change the strategies and tactics of the forces by psychological strategies being put to use.
Sometimes, political issues have been dealt with proper measures in this changing scenario. The main purpose of the political leaders is to ensure the safety in the world. They have so many political agendas that will hamper the peacekeeping in the world. As an example, the political problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been a problem for many people all across Europe. United Nations is the institution where the countries have to abide by the rules set for maintaining international peace. The use of these organized forces is not influenced by the use of political forces indeed. The security of the nations should be widened properly so they can gain the better outcomes in mitigating the conflicts between several nations. The changing perspectives of nuclear deterrence have been somewhat influenced by the globalization as well. In globalization, all nations are expected to maintain a peaceful relationship and cater to the improvement of each other. The incident of 9/11 attacks can be presented in this section because it was a slap from the side of terrorist groups who showed that probably the most powerful nation in the world United States had some defects in their security arrangements. In some countries, domestic violence has been regarded as one of the most intriguing prospects. In order to tighten the security, the leaders of those countries must take some steps to threaten the terrorist groups that they will have to pay for their attacks. Therefore, they will have to deal with their domestic problems as well (Bringsjord et al. 2014). According to the critics, it will be effective for these countries to implement strategies for the use of these nuclear weapons. In this scenario, it will be beneficial for the readers to divide the timeline into three sections to understand the impact of nuclear deterrence. These time sections are:- period during cold war, period after cold war or post-cold war or period after 9/11 (Ven Bruusgaard, 2016).
Nuclear deterrence has always been an important matter to be discussed by the parties involved in conflicts. When some countries get involved in war situations, it is very important that they should be dissuaded by the threat of war or use of nuclear weapons. The beginning of nuclear deterrence strategies generally came to use during the times of World War II. The execution of nuclear weapons had been could be seen during the end of World War II on Japan as has been discussed previously (Ven Bruusgaard, 2016). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that cities must be protected from being bombed by air strikes. This has to be done with strict measures otherwise there will be nothing but darkness for the countries. In this manner, it will be very important to note that countries that might attack their enemies should be known beforehand. Then only they would be able to take some positive actions indeed.
During the time of the cold war, USA and Russia had strong nuclear weapons in their possession. They were strong opponents of each other and these nuclear weapons would decide their fates. This was indeed very important for the international relations. Therefore, it would be very much important to note that both the countries wanted to make their strategies very clear so they will need to make the things stand as they threatened each other for wars (Adamsky, 2014). Though the face to face war never took place, the international relations between those countries had completely deteriorated. The Soviet leaders were pretty sure that their nuclear weapons would be enough to fight the battle and win it. Then the United States took the position of nuclear deterrence. They threatened that they too, would use their nuclear weapons to stop the enemy attacks. They will surely retaliate if Soviet attacked them. This was the beginning of the nuclear deterrence amidst the cold war situations. In the 1950s, United States had deployed some strategies that would surely put the Soviet Union to think about their steps.
United States developed some mechanisms and improved their delivery systems to put USSR under severe pressure (Adamsky, 2014). The delivery systems of Soviet Union will surely be a strong weapon to retaliate against the probable Soviet attacks. This situation emerged from the occasion when soldiers of both USA and USSR celebrated their victory over the Nazi dominance in old Europe of Hitler (Denning, 2015). It is quite an interesting fact that USA builds three such systems where they could really give tough competition to the Soviet Nation. Those three systems were long-range manned aircrafts that will carry nuclear weapons for total destruction of Russia, intercontinental ballistic missiles that would have a long range effect. This would contain nuclear warheads (Snyder, 2015). The third system was that of the submarines with nuclear power and having the power to carry nuclear ballistic missiles. These systems were really some frightening things for the USSR indeed. All these systems became the parts of the Strategic Triad.
They would really be very powerful enough indeed. These weapons were so deadly and strong that they could deter the Soviet attacks (Shearman, 2017). It was quite clear from the strategists that no power in the world would be able to deal with destroying all the three weapons at the same time. This marked the fact that United States was quite safe by deterring these three weapons. So, this Strategic Triad seemed to be invincible indeed (Snyder, 2015). Thus the nuclear deterrence methods during the cold war period seemed to be quite a strong one. This scenario has changed quite a lot in the current times.
The use of nuclear deterrence in the post cold war deterrence was quite convincing as well. United States gained the dominance over other nations and they showed that they could use these weapons if they noticed anything against the civilization of the world. Therefore, it was quite interesting to see the deployment of the nuclear weapons to protect the lives of the common people (Denning, 2015). The nuclear deterrence policies have been quite interesting in this period since they were mostly conventional. After the cold war, Soviet Union had collapsed and it broke into several small counties (Betts, 2014). It was without a shadow of a doubt that United States acquired a great power in the international sphere. So, they had the supreme power in their hands to control the world. The development of new technologies almost made it possible to deploy nuclear strategies for nuclear deterrence with the help of weapons and use of the conventional forces. Therefore, many significant developments had been made after the cold war in terms of technology (Denning, 2015).
So, it was quite possible to make the things happen indeed,. Some of the areas in which technology had catered to are accuracy, support for information, stealth and intelligence (Rajesh, 2014). The conventional theories of deterrence were not that much fearful or deadly like the nuclear weapons (Sands, Camacho & Mihalik, 2017). The case is similar to the use of nuclear weapons than those conventional weapons. Apparently, these nuclear weapons were deadlier and they were more accurate. The users of these weapons were able to collect the needed information for those potential attacks (Palmer, 2015). The Air strikes or air campaigns are mostly regarded as one of the most fearful methods of using nuclear weapons. This suggests the aggression of the human beings. On the other hand, it also suggests the fact that soldiers will use this technology based nuclear weapons for better results. Some instances can be given in this case. One is that of air strike by United States on Libya and another is of the United States aggression on the civil infrastructures of Iraq (Sands, Camacho & Mihalik, 2017).
Some critics and weapon experts have said that the use of conventional weapons used by different countries has been improved a lot by the use of technology during the period after the cold war (Heisbourg, 2015). The use of these conventional weapons would have to be done very carefully indeed. Then only they could get the work done with a proper logistical and political support (Rajesh, 2014).
So, political support is deemed as a very important factor for the use of conventional nuclear weapons. Apart from USA, some non-Western countries have also adopted this strategy of the nuclear deterrence in their own ways. This has been quite successful as well. Therefore, nuclear deterrence might be a probable difficulty for terrorist leaders like Osama Bin Laden of Saudi Arabia. Later in the 1990s, he had denied to use his chemical weapons against United States and their friend nations (Wirsing, 2016). He understood that there would be large scale retaliations from United States. Thus, the nuclear deterrence has been shaped after the cold war with the help of technology (Fihn, 2017).
The use of the conventional deterrent powers has not been done in the previous years and nobody is sure that this can be approached with its full force like that of nuclear deterrence program (Wirsing, 2016). It is because the United Nations might pose some problems regarding the use of the nuclear weapons. So, countries must engage in using these nuclear weapons will have to make use of these things for the utmost benefit of the states. Arguably United States has not shown any interest in configuring the power of Europe and Asia. The main barrier that comes in this program is that of the geographical issues (Broad & Sanger, 2016). United States is far away from European and Asian countries. Therefore, it will require a very strong power projection for them to investigate into this matter. The fact of conventional deterrence has also faced some problems in the past as well (Grand, 2016). Therefore, it is projected not so important like the powers of the nuclear deterrence. After the cold war at the end of the 21st century, superiority in the use of technology is very much required in this scenario. Therefore, it will be highly important to note that standing force structure should also have been developed for the development of the nuclear deterrence. The deterrence programs should be made successful by the virtue of these technologies. So, they will have to work on many costly, large, capable and complex structures (Rabinowitz, 2014).
One important concern in this situation is the fact that proper nuclear disarmament will not be possible every time. This means no state in the world will agree to give up all their nuclear weapons. It is because the eradication of nuclear weapons cannot be done. It is also a fact that many countries use their nuclear weapons for their self-defense only (Powers, 2015). Therefore, they look to hide their nuclear weapons and they can intervene in the difficult situations in the international relations as well. Therefore, it is quite difficult to show that the nuclear weapons will actually exist in their arsenal (Grand, 2016). The development of these nuclear weapons has also been a matter of concern in the period after the cold war. It is quite important to note that United States has opted to stand alone against the face offs against small power nations indeed. Therefore, it could result in the mass destruction with the use of several nuclear weapons (Bleek & Lorber, 2014).
During the times after the cold war, it was reported by some experts that United States moved towards nuclear disarmament (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014). This could result in the proliferation of the nuclear weapons around the world. Another important issue that might be highlighted in this issue is that of the nuclear disarmament by the rogue states or small states that hide under the shelters of powerful states having nuclear weapons (Powers, 2015). The use of the nuclear weapons in the Gulf war was a great lesson for all the countries and their leaders. It showed the fact that nuclear weapons might be very much necessary on the background of protecting one’s own from the recurrent violent attacks. As the international warfare strategies have complicated in the current times, turmoil can be created in this scenario and this would surely need the intervention of the strong states like United States, Russia and others. Many historic changes have taken place over the years and this has catered to the change of strategic interpretations regarding the use of the nuclear weapons (Powers, 2015). As situations are worsening in the current times and there are uncertainties all over, it will be very problematic to eradicate the use of nuclear weapons completely. Thus the up gradation of nuclear powers from the conventional powers will be a matter of special focus indeed (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014).
In this section, the evolution of nuclear deterrence will be discussed after the 9/11 attacks. This terrorist attack in the heart of United States was a potential game changer in terms of security threats that could be posed to the states (Rupp, 2016). The destruction of the twin towers was a very important event in the timeline of the United States history. Therefore, countries focused on increasing their securities during the later times. In 2010, President Barrack Obama confessed that nuclear weapons in the hands of the terrorists would simply blow up the major cities in the world (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014).
Therefore, a shift in the development of the nuclear weapons was needed very badly indeed. The terrorists had acquired a huge strength that allowed them to commit such a horrific attack (Collins, 2016). The issue of nuclear deterrence became a hot topic in the coming times. Various non-state actors have kept away from the perspective of the nuclear deterrence for a long time. This is perhaps because they are not as powerful as the big countries and they always want to play it safe in terms of international relations. Therefore, different nations got united in meetings and took a step to consolidate nuclear deterrence programs throughout the world (Shultz & Goodby, 2015). To the United States, the challenge from the terrorists groups proved to be a major threat than those posed by Russians. Therefore, the situation got worsened indeed and United States wanted to use the nuclear weapons to blow up the terrorist groups from the world (Durkalec & Kroenig, 2016). However, the policy makers in USA attempted to cut down the amount of nuclear weapons from the arsenal of United States.
Probably this would be highly significant indeed. This will surely be effective for dealing with potential security threats that were on the US forces already. Therefore, the role of the nuclear weapons also got diminished indeed (Shultz & Goodby, 2015). The improvements should have been done to develop the chances of United States to make proper strategies to combat against these terrorist attacks. Some critics are of the opinion that United States wanted to sustain the limits of using the nuclear weapons to hold their good reputation in front of other countries and United Nations (Durkalec & Kroenig, 2016).
Many new strategies were taken up by the United States to look into the issues like nuclear proliferation, issues regarding arms control, making new policies and determining nuclear strategies (Cimbala & McDermott, 2015). These issues will be of serious importance since it involved the general security of the entire world. Every effort that United States made will be intertwined with their views about the nuclear proliferation around the globe by other countries. United States has come to realize their potential threats from the non-state terrorist actors since this will be one of the most prolific things. New challenges have come up regarding nuclear deterrence by United States and other countries (Durkalec & Kroenig, 2016).
Countries like United Kingdom have also been involved in this scenario. This is due to two reasons. One is the fact that United Kingdom is one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The second fact is regarding the issue that United Kingdom has also been the victims of non-state terrorist attacks (Von Hlatky & Wenger, 2015). Therefore, they have also understood the importance of the nuclear deterrence in the world after 9/11. Countries like United States and United Kingdom believe that the act of nuclear deterrence is much better than fighting (Cimbala, 2014). They do have the power and capability of fighting against the terrorists. Probably they will win as well. However, this will cause in a lot of damage to them regarding the loss of lives and loss of money, food and other resources (Cimbala, 2014). So, it will be better of they can show their nuclear power and threat the terrorists from beginning the war. In this scenario, the difference between nuclear deterrence, offence and defense can be shown. Countries can show their strength by showing their enemies their strength and force them to maintain a peaceful relation with them. Nuclear deterrence is a strategy by which war can be stopped before it has already begun. Offence means to attack and defense means to protect after the first attack is made (Von Hlatky & Wenger, 2015). Nowadays, powerful countries like USA, UK, Russia and others use their military attacks to confront against those terrorists. Thus they expect terrorists will refrain from their attacks and stay back. On the contrary, this is not always the case indeed. They think it will really be a very problematic factor for the common people of the country (Kristensen & Norris, 2015). In India nuclear testing has also taken place at Pokhran in Rajasthan in the ending years of the previous century. It is prevalent due to the rising threats from their potential threats Pakistan.
There are some distinct things that can be ascribed to the nuclear weapons in the current times. The satellites placed in the space will catch the images of nuclear blasts. The pressure waves created because of nuclear blasts can be felt in the 21st century due to the scientific advancement (Kristensen & Norris, 2015). This is how nuclear testing is made. One more thing that can be said in this issue of nuclear deterrence is the fact that making of nuclear weapons is a very costly measure. It takes a lot of money to prepare nuclear weapons (Lebow, 2016). Ethically it should only be used to make the terrorist groups afraid that they will not give up a single inch of land without retaliation. A proper developed scientific infrastructure is also very much needed to make sure that these nuclear weapons are in the right hands (Reiter, 2014).
Therefore, the countries in the 21st century should focus on their own power and balance of power. This is extremely important from a lot of viewpoints. The countries have recently have taken initiatives for joint and collaborative action (Lebow, 2016). This has increased the chances of making better responses to non state terrorist attacks. Terrorism will gain new means of significance through the use of nuclear powers in the world. If the countries do not take collective action against these non state terrorist actors, this might cause mass destruction by the use of domestic airlines facilities (Reiter, 2014).
In the current scenario, the issue of deterrence has come to limelight again after dominating these non state actors. The main purpose should obviously be on reinstating peace in the world (Cimbala & McDermott, 2015). It has been recognized that deterrence is not just based on nuclear strategies. Therefore, some steps should be taken to curb down the emergence of these actors indeed. The emergence of technology has come up to the forefront regarding the use of robotic warfare and cyber security. Confidential information should be secured through the tightening of cyber security. Apart from that, robotic warfare is deemed as very important but costly. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, ISIS and others should be contained if peace has to be restored in the world.
This essay can be concluded by saying nuclear deterrence has been regarded as one of the most useful strategies in the world to prevent the wars. In the current political situation full of complications and turmoil, it is very crucial to stop the wars to save the human resources. This proves the fact that nuclear deterrence has been a very important factor for the world to perceive in this complicated political scenario. The world leaders will always try keeping a peaceful condition in the world without any wars or conflicts. Nuclear deterrence will probably be the most effective thing for the betterment in the international relations. It has learned from the essay that nuclear deterrence can be divided into three sections i.e. cold war era, post cold war era and era after 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the impacts of these strategies taken at different times by powerful countries, mostly United States of America have been discussed, Apart from USA, other countries like UK and Russia have also taken up their nuclear deterrence strategies as well. It is of utmost importance that all these things should be taken care to prevent the war situations with the non state actors like terrorists. It is because terrorists have come up as the recent threats for the security of the big and powerful countries.
Adamsky, D. (2014). If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking About ‘Regional Nuclear Deterrence’. The journal of Slavic military studies, 27(1), 163-188.
Betts, R. K. (2014). Pick Your Battles: Ending America's Era of Permanent War. Foreign Aff., 93, 15.
Bleek, P. C., & Lorber, E. B. (2014). Security guarantees and allied nuclear proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(3), 429-454.
Bringsjord, S., Govindarajulu, N. S., Ellis, S., McCarty, E., & Licato, J. (2014). Nuclear deterrence and the logic of deliberative mindreading. Cognitive Systems Research, 28, 20-43.
Broad, W. J., & Sanger, D. E. (2016). As US modernizes nuclear weapons,‘smaller’leaves some uneasy. The New York Times, 11.
Cimbala, S. J. (2014). Nuclear deterrence and cyber: the quest for concept. Air & Space Power Journal, 28(2), 87.
Cimbala, S. J. (2014). US military strategy and the Cold War endgame. Routledge.
Cimbala, S. J., & McDermott, R. N. (2015). A New Cold War? Missile Defenses, Nuclear Arms Reductions, and Cyber War. Comparative strategy, 34(1), 95-111.
Collins, A. (Ed.). (2016). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Dalby, S. (2016). Creating the second cold war: The discourse of politics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Denning, D. E. (2015). Rethinking the cyber domain and deterrence.
Durkalec, J., & Kroenig, M. (2016). NATO’s nuclear deterrence: Closing credibility gaps. The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 12(1), 37-50.
Fihn, B. (2017). The logic of banning nuclear weapons. Survival, 59(1), 43-50.
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014). Nuclear strategy, nonproliferation, and the causes of foreign nuclear deployments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(3), 455-480.
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014). Signaling Alliance Commitments: Hand?Tying and Sunk Costs in Extended Nuclear Deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 919-935.
Grand, C. (2016). Nuclear deterrence and the Alliance in the 21. century.
Heisbourg, F. (2015). Preserving Post-Cold War Europe. Survival, 57(1), 31-48.
Holmes, J. R. (2016). Sea changes: The future of nuclear deterrence. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 72(4), 228-233.
Kristensen, H. M., & Norris, R. S. (2015). Indian nuclear forces, 2015. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(5), 77-83.
Lebow, R. N. (2016). Deterrence: a political and psychological critique. In Richard Ned Lebow: Key Texts in Political Psychology and International Relations Theory (pp. 3-24). Springer, Cham.
Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2017). The new era of counterforce: Technological change and the future of nuclear deterrence. International Security, 41(4), 9-49.
Miller, S. E. (2014). Strategy and nuclear deterrence. Princeton University Press.
Palmer, D. A. R. (2015). Back to the Future?: Russia's Hybrid Warfare, Revolutions in Military Affairs, and Cold War Comparisons. NATO Defense College, Research Division.
Payne, K. B. (2015). Deterrence in the second nuclear age. University Press of Kentucky.
Powers, G. (2015). From Nuclear Deterrence to Disarmament: Evolving Catholic Perspectives. Arms Control Today, 45(4), 8-13.
Rabinowitz, O. (2014). Bargaining on nuclear tests: washington and its Cold War deals. Oxford University Press.
Rajesh, B. (2014). Nuclear deterrence: the Wohlstetter Blackett debate re-visited.
Reiter, D. (2014). Security commitments and nuclear proliferation. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(1), 61-80.
Rupp, R. (2016). NATO after 9/11: an alliance in continuing decline. Springer.
Russett, B. M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas of nuclear deterrence. In Bruce M. Russett: Pioneer in the Scientific and Normative Study of War, Peace, and Policy (pp. 153-168). Springer, Cham.
Sands, T., Camacho, H., & Mihalik, R. (2017). Education in nuclear deterrence and assurance. J. Def. Manag, 7, 166.
Shearman, P. (2017). Reconceptualizing Security After 9/11. In European Security After 9/11 (pp. 21-37). Routledge.
Shultz, G. P., & Goodby, J. E. (Eds.). (2015). The War that Must Never be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence. Hoover Press.
Snyder, G. H. (2015). Deterrence and defense (Vol. 2168). Princeton University Press.
Ven Bruusgaard, K. (2016). Russian strategic deterrence. Survival, 58(4), 7-26.
Von Hlatky, S., & Wenger, A. (Eds.). (2015). The future of extended deterrence: The United States, NATO, and beyond. Georgetown University Press.
Wirsing, R. G. (2016). Kashmir in the shadow of war: Regional rivalries in a nuclear age. Routledge.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2022). Accounting Principles II. Retrieved from https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
"Accounting Principles II." My Assignment Help, 2022, https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
My Assignment Help (2022) Accounting Principles II [Online]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html
[Accessed 06 September 2022].
My Assignment Help. 'Accounting Principles II' (My Assignment Help, 2022) < https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html> accessed 06 September 2022.
My Assignment Help. Accounting Principles II [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 06 September 2022]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
Are you confident that you will achieve the grade?
Our best Expert will help you improve your grade
If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignment.live then please raise the content removal request.