{"id":44956,"date":"2019-01-22T14:53:54","date_gmt":"2019-01-22T03:53:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=44956"},"modified":"2019-01-22T14:53:54","modified_gmt":"2019-01-22T03:53:54","slug":"extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/","title":{"rendered":"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

Over recent years, a somewhat geeky debate has emerged among the exponents of deterrence and assurance. Although the discussion typically occurs between Americans and nationals of an allied country, it\u2019s overly simplistic to describe it as one between the US and its allies\u2014the divisions aren\u2019t that clear-cut.<\/p>\n

The debate is part philosophical and part phraseological. At its core sits a single adjective. Some Americans (including policymakers) say that what the US offers its allies is \u2018extended deterrence\u2019. But a number of allied nationals (again, including policymakers) find the phrase underwhelming; they\u2019d prefer that it read \u2018extended nuclear<\/em> deterrence\u2019. And so we come directly to the crux of the argument: the presence or absence of the word \u2018nuclear\u2019 in the assurance that the US provides to its allies.<\/p>\n

Some might find it difficult to imagine\u2014in a world of great-power competition and faltering global order\u2014that much of strategic consequence turns upon whether one particular aspect of US declaratory policy is best described by a noun with one adjective or a noun with two. But perceptions matter, so let\u2019s unpack the distinction a little more.<\/p>\n

The first adjective in the phrase (\u2018extended\u2019, the adjective everyone can agree on) refers to geography. In essence, it says that the deterrent powers of the US arsenal are \u2018extended\u2019 to cover forward-based allies and not merely the US homeland. Since US alliances are transoceanic, that first adjective plays an important role.<\/p>\n

But the second, disputed, adjective refers to a more specific commitment\u2014an assurance that the deterrent effects of US nuclear weapons are extended to cover forward-based allies. The word \u2018nuclear\u2019 underlines the level of seriousness of American commitment towards its allies\u2019 security. The first adjective focuses on the geography of obligation, the second on its intensity.<\/p>\n

Allies tend to focus on the nuclear element of deterrence because, as signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they\u2019re not entitled to build nuclear weapons of their own. Either nuclear deterrence comes to them \u2018extended\u2019 by a nuclear-armed ally or it doesn\u2019t come to them at all\u2014unless, of course, they choose to withdraw from the NPT and develop their own nuclear weapons. That\u2019s why proponents of extended nuclear deterrence often see it as the key to non-proliferation.<\/p>\n

Naturally, an important stress test for the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence is whether or not allies find it credible\u2014that is, do they really believe that Washington would fight a nuclear war on their behalf when doing so would increase the risk of nuclear attack on the US homeland? Michael Quinlan, the British strategic thinker, once described<\/a> the \u2018appallingly difficult dilemma\u2019 that extended nuclear guarantees encountered: \u2018how to give confidence to the forward members of an alliance in which nuclear power had for various reasons to be concentrated not in their hands but mostly in the hands of the rearmost member, on the far side of an ocean\u2019.<\/p>\n

That confidence tends to be shaken even by small things\u2014such as the omission of the second adjective from the phrase \u2018extended nuclear deterrence\u2019. Allies tend to see the full phrase as an important, if totemic, indicator of their own worth in the international order, whereas some in Washington probably see the phrase as entailing an unfortunately specific, and perhaps unnecessary, form of entanglement.<\/p>\n

By contrast, allies tend to interpret the phrase \u2018extended deterrence\u2019 as a specific form of abandonment, whereas some US policymakers see it as a mere statement of strategic fact\u2014that effective deterrence depends on a spectrum of capabilities rather than mere nuclear threats.<\/p>\n

I said at the outset that this wasn\u2019t simply a debate between the US and its allies. Sometimes US\u2014and allied\u2014declaratory statements shift around, using the phrases either interchangeably or in support of a broader messaging about the role of nuclear weapons in US strategic policy and their prominence in alliance relationships. The Trump administration\u2019s Nuclear Posture Review<\/a>, for example, uses \u2018extended nuclear deterrence\u2019 11 times and \u2018extended deterrence\u2019 only six\u2014in each case attempting to pick the version which best portrays the message it\u2019s trying to convey. The second adjective typically appears in the context of strengthening US assurance of allies.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the Nuclear Posture Review<\/a> conducted under President Barack Obama used \u2018extended deterrence\u2019 13 times and \u2018extended nuclear deterrence\u2019 not at all. But that was a document published back in the halcyon days of 2010, when memories of Obama\u2019s anti-nuclear speech in Prague the year before were still fresh, and the international security environment looked considerably more promising than it does today. In short, as international security has deteriorated, nuclear weapons have come more to the forefront of alliance politics\u2014and the second adjective has returned.<\/p>\n

A similar observation can just as easily be made about formal statements by US allies. The Australian government\u2019s response<\/a> to a set of questions asked by former Greens senator Scott Ludlam back in 2011, for example, shows a preference for the noun with two adjectives, even during the years of a Labor government. But it doesn\u2019t need a particularly determined search of Hansard to show that \u2018extended deterrence\u2019 is used virtually interchangeably with its longer-format sibling.<\/p>\n

One final, real-world wrinkle deserves mention. The term \u2018extended deterrence\u2019 might seem to imply greater US nuclear disengagement from its allies and, as I say above, perceptions matter. But in reality, America\u2019s nuclear commitments to its allies remain robust under both formulations. Anyone who doubts that might like to read through section V of the Obama administration\u2019s nuclear employment strategy<\/a>. In practice, there\u2019s less daylight between the two phrases than the debate presupposes. That there\u2019s a debate at all turns upon the fluctuating level of confidence that sits at the heart of current alliance arrangements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over recent years, a somewhat geeky debate has emerged among the exponents of deterrence and assurance. Although the discussion typically occurs between Americans and nationals of an allied country, it\u2019s overly simplistic to describe it …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":44957,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[40,116,356,31],"class_list":["post-44956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-alliance-2","tag-nuclear-deterrence","tag-nuclear-weapons","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nExtended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Over recent years, a somewhat geeky debate has emerged among the exponents of deterrence and assurance. Although the discussion typically occurs between Americans and nationals of an allied country, it\u2019s overly simplistic to describe it ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rod Lyon\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rod Lyon\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\",\"name\":\"The Strategist\",\"description\":\"ASPI's analysis and commentary site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":750},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/\",\"name\":\"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/9b94d45f61c61c15e3313f55e2c145bd\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/9b94d45f61c61c15e3313f55e2c145bd\",\"name\":\"Rod Lyon\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9090df27d0a103459ebfc0282858e8c1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9090df27d0a103459ebfc0282858e8c1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rod Lyon\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/rod-lyon\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist","og_description":"Over recent years, a somewhat geeky debate has emerged among the exponents of deterrence and assurance. Although the discussion typically occurs between Americans and nationals of an allied country, it\u2019s overly simplistic to describe it ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/","og_site_name":"The Strategist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org","article_published_time":"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":750,"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Rod Lyon","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ASPI_org","twitter_site":"@ASPI_org","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rod Lyon","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/","name":"The Strategist","description":"ASPI's analysis and commentary site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/2201titanmissile.jpg","width":1000,"height":750},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/","name":"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word? | The Strategist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-22T03:53:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/9b94d45f61c61c15e3313f55e2c145bd"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/extended-nuclear-deterrence-whats-in-a-word\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Extended (nuclear?) deterrence: what\u2019s in a word?"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/9b94d45f61c61c15e3313f55e2c145bd","name":"Rod Lyon","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9090df27d0a103459ebfc0282858e8c1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9090df27d0a103459ebfc0282858e8c1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rod Lyon"},"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/rod-lyon\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44956"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44956"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44960,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44956\/revisions\/44960"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44957"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}