Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Nuclear deterrence remains important in post-Cold War era

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • Jon Kyl, Chairman. "Maintaining Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century." US Republican Policy Committee. June 16, 2005 - "'The United States’ ability to deter adversaries from unacceptable courses of action rests on a wide range of military, diplomatic, and economic tools. U.S. nuclear deterrent forces comprise a fundamental part of that strategic deterrence. As the Joint Operating Concept notes, 'U.S. nuclear forces contribute uniquely and fundamentally to strategic deterrence – through their ability to impose costs and deny benefits to an adversary in an exceedingly rapid and devastating manner no adversary can counter.'"
  • Paul Robinson, President and Director, Sandia National Laboratories. "A White Paper: Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century". March 11, 2001 - "I recently began to worry that because there were few public statements by U.S. officials in reaffirming the unique role which nuclear weapons play in ensuring U.S. and world security, far too many people (including many in our own armed forces) were beginning to believe that perhaps nuclear weapons no longer had value. It seemed to me that it was time for someone to step forward and articulate the other side of these issues for the public: first, that nuclear weapons remain of vital importance to the security of the U.S. and to our allies and friends (today and for the near future); and second, that nuclear weapons will likely have an enduring role in preserving the peace and preventing world wars for the foreseeable future. These are my purposes in writing this paper."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.