In the new era, the United States need not rely on nuclear weapons to prevent a global challenger from upsetting the status quo, to compensate for weakness in conventional defense, or to impress others with its power. Although the threat of nuclear response to conventional attack is no longer crucial to U.S. strategy, rogue states might adopt this tactic to deter U.S. power projection. However, the United States needs nuclear weapons to deter nuclear and biological attack, which could be just as deadly and might not be deterred by threat of U.S. conventional retaliation. The United States could reduce the importance and attractiveness of nuclear weapons, delegitimize their use in response to conventional threats, sharpen nuclear deterrence against biological weapons by stating nuclear weapons would be used only in retaliation for attacks with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--in essence, a "no-first-use-of-WMD" policy.

In the new era, the United States need not rely on nuclear weapons to prevent a global challenger from upsetting the status quo, to compensate for weakness in conventional defense, or to impress others with its power. Although the threat of nuclear response to conventional attack is no longer crucial to U.S. strategy, rogue states might adopt this tactic to deter U.S. power projection. However, the United States needs nuclear weapons to deter nuclear and biological attack, which could be just as deadly and might not be deterred by threat of U.S. conventional retaliation. The United States could reduce the importance and attractiveness of nuclear weapons, delegitimize their use in response to conventional threats, sharpen nuclear deterrence against biological weapons by stating nuclear weapons would be used only in retaliation for attacks with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--in essence, a "no-first-use-of-WMD" policy.

Rethinking the Unthinkable examines the future direction of nuclear arms control in the post-Cold War security environment. Believing that the new environment requires a radical rethinking of the purpose and role of nuclear weapons in international politics, the contributors address many fundamental issues influencing further US, Russian and European nuclear arms reductions. This volume is a product of the Project on Rethinking Arms Control, sponsored by the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland.

Expanded from an article that created a stir in foreign policy circles, this book shows why five central arguments promoting nuclear weapons are, in essence, myths.

The massive movement against nuclear weapons began with the invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 and lasted throughout the Cold War. Antinuclear protesters of all sorts mobilized in defiance of the move toward nuclear defense in the wake of the Cold War. They influenced U.S. politics, resisting the mindset of nuclear deterrence and mutually-assured destruction. The movement challenged Cold War militarism and restrained leaders who wanted to rely almost exclusively on nuclear weapons for national security. Ultimately, a huge array of activists decided that nuclear weapons made the country less secure, and that, through testing and radioactive fallout, they harmed the very people they were supposed to protect. Rethinking the American Antinuclear Movement provides a short, accessible overview of this important social and political movement, highlighting key events and figures, the strengths and weaknesses of the activists, and its lasting effects on the country. It is perfect for anyone wanting to obtain an introduction to the American antinuclear movement and the massive reach of this transnational concern.

This PDF can be downloaded for free from http://martenscentre.eu/publications/rethinking-bomb-europe-and-nuclear-weapons-twenty-first-century The question of what Europe's nuclear strategy should be is rarely discussed. While Europe continues to play a crucial role on issues relating to non-proliferation, particularly in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, nuclear strategy is generally considered to be within remit of Russia, the United States and NATO. The paper identifies possible scenarios where the deployment of nuclear weapons may be justified. It also examines the use of tactical nuclear weapons, traditional means of arms control and the implications of a nuclear Iran. The author establishes a compelling case for the immediate development of a coherent European nuclear strategy. This strategy should take into account the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining peace and security in modern Europe. While conceding that during periods of financial and political crisis dialogue may not be considered a priority, the author maintains that it is essential in order to limit the risk of proliferation or the use of nuclear weapons.