Trump’s Presidency and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence

Nuclear_weapons_states.svgA new article published in the Journal of Contemporary Security Policy endeavors to explore the impact of Trump’s Presidency on nuclear proliferation. Specifically, it brings to light the changing nature of US alliances with non-nuclear defense partners. Since the cold war, non-nuclear defense partners have been under a construct known as the nuclear umbrella. Under this arrangement, the United States gives defensive assurances to partner states. As a result, the United States is able to exert regional influence and discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Trump has since challenged the existence of this paradigm by demanding NATO members pay more. Even more surprising is Trump’s suggestion that Japan and South Korea acquire their own nuclear weapons.

By D-Ray, a contributing author to SHTFBlog & Survival Cache

A superficial examination of nuclear umbrella deterrence and President Trump’s comments indicate we will see partner states developing their own nuclear programs in the next few years. Upon further examination, this conclusion is not entirely accurate. The paper notes that even if the Trump Administration wanted to, it could not unilaterally abrogate defensive partnerships with allied states. In this regard, the nuclear umbrella can only be weakened. It will always exist under Trump’s State Department.

Additionally, the partial withdrawal of United State defense assurances would not compel all states to pursue their own nuclear defense programs. Some states have no desire to build their own nuclear program for a variety of ethical reasons. Moreover, some states find that the security costs of pursuing an independent nuclear program are too high.

In any case, it would seem, at least according to this article, that international nuclear paradigms will change little under Trump’s Presidency. Nuclear deterrence arrangements constitute a very strong institution. ¬†Contrary to what some pundits claim, the world is not going to go “totally nuclear” under Trump’s Administration.

Do you agree with the conclusion of this article? How do you see nuclear paradigms changing in the next four years?

Visit Sponsors of SurvivalCache.com

300-x-250-hope-for-the-best

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the_survivalist_podcast

 

 

 

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

9 comments… add one
  • TreeStand February 3, 2017, 8:32 pm

    The more nukes, the more chance they will be used. Simple as that.

    Trump is putting America first even if it means we get in a nuclear war. Trump’s mental illness will prevent him from understanding the needs of other countries, and therefore he will get in a pissing match with someone who will push the button first.

    Hey, at least we will go up in flames as proud Americans. Better than being number 2, I say.

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle February 4, 2017, 3:51 am

      … what, Hillary isn’t just as mentally ill as Trump?

      Reply
      • Joe February 10, 2017, 9:36 am

        Hillary is worse. Putin said she would start WW III. He is in a position to know.

        Reply
        • irishdutchuncle February 11, 2017, 4:46 am

          yeh Joe, that’s what I’m thinking.

          despite all she’s done “for the children”, I wish to avoid that war, at almost any cost.

          Reply
  • Roger February 3, 2017, 11:20 pm

    Despite what so many liberals want you to believe, Trump is not mentally ill, he is a lot more pragmatic than that! He is simply attempting to even out the financial burden of defending the ‘free’ world; why should the USA pay for the lion’s share? Give the tax payers a break, America’s military expenditures are unnecessarily sinking us deeper into the debt abyss! There are about 800 US military bases in foreign countries that are costing us a massive fortune, this policy has ruined many an empire (Rome, for example) because the cost is too much to bear long-term. We should severely reduce the number of foreign bases to cut costs and those countries should have to shoulder more of the burden of defending themselves! Why do you assume that Japan and/or South Korea don’t already have nuclear weapons? Why would they admit or advertise it? In a all-out nuclear war, nations like Japan or South Korea would be annihilated by either Russia or China or both, neither of them have any love for those neighbors and quite frankly the US couldn’t stop it, only retaliate afterward assuming we still have the means to do so! Nuclear war is probably inevitable, whether by accident or misguided aggression, little short of all nuclear weapons (and all the materials to make more) being launched toward the sun will stop the nuclear genie from being unleashed! Humans are just too childishly insane, just look at the Women’s March where the participants dressed up as vaginas; because that will make us take them seriously!!! Ha, Ha, Sob, Sob, laugh until you cry! What can you do, you already know, that’s why you read these types of blogs, get as prepared as best you can, NOW! GLAHP!

    Reply
    • Bob February 9, 2017, 1:26 pm

      you talk like a faggot

      Reply
      • Joe February 10, 2017, 9:40 am

        Roger is correct. We help other nations with everything from defense to natural disasters. When hurricane dandy destroyed most of New Jersey, do you know how many nations offered aid to the U.S? Not a one.

        Reply
      • irishdutchuncle February 11, 2017, 3:50 am

        as long as he’s not bothering young boys, he can talk any way he likes Bob.

        Reply
  • BudgetSurvivalist February 10, 2017, 12:20 am

    Thanks for that insightful comment Bob.

    Trump is playing the game with a different set of rules, his own. Hard to predict how it will play out. Impossible to stop a determined psycho with a bomb most of the time. The real question is how will we react after an attack. Successful or not.

    I believe a shift is happening within our system right now, good vs. evil. In 6 months we will our answer and so will the rest of the world.

    Reply

Leave a Comment