1. International Security and Peace
You Qi

2. Question:
Compare and contrast the similarities and differences of the US nuclear posture review released in 2002 and the US NPR What are (were – in case of 2002 NPR) the implications of these two rather different US nuclear policies to international security?

3. Nuclear posture review 2002

4. Main points:
1. "Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large- scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets that are important to achieve strategic and political objectives." (p. 7)

5. 2. This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive);
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats.

6. 3. Threat-based Planning → Capability-based Planning
It put forward that Capability-Based Planning (CBP) was developed as an alternative to Threat-Based Planning.
Under the threat-based approach, the size of force was primarily reflected -- was a reflection of a specific threat. There was an emphasis on nuclear offensive forces.
While the capabilities-based approach emphasize to deploy missile defense, but it argues that there may be multiple contingencies and new threats that which have to be dealt with.

7. Force structure
The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review also included components requiring the "Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—but also China, Libya and Syria.” ¨U.S. nuclear forces will continue to provide assurance to security partners, particularly in the presence of known or suspected threats of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks or in the event of surprising military developments.¨

8. Responsive force
“The responsive force is intended to provide a capability to augment the operationally deployed force to meet potential contingencies ... The responsive force ... retains the option for leadership to increase the number of operationally delayed forces in proportion to the severity of an evolving crisis. A responsive force need not be available in a matter of days, but in weeks, months, or even years. For example, additional bombs could be brought out of the non-deployed stockpile in days or weeks. By contrast, adding additional weapons to the ICBM force could take as long as a year for a squadron in a wing. The responsive force [also] provides a reserve from which replacements can be provided for operationally deployed weapons that evidence reliability problems.”

9. The addition of non-nuclear strike forces
The addition of non-nuclear strike forces--including conventional strike and information operations--means that the U.S. will be less dependent than it has been in the past on nuclear forces to provide its offensive deterrent capability.

10. Nuclear posture review 2010

11. The Changed – and Changing – International Security Environment
The international security environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War. The threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased;
Nuclear terrorism - Al Qaeda and their extremist allies;
Nuclear proliferation - North Korea and Iran;

12. Continue to address the more familiar challenge of ensuring strategic stability with existing nuclear powers – most notably Russia and China
The United States and China are increasingly interdependent and their shared responsibilities for addressing global security threats

13. The NPR focuses on five key objectives of nuclear weapons policies and posture:
Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners;
Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

14. Looking ahead: Towards a World without Nuclear Weapons
¨ We can take the practical steps identified in the 2010 NPR that will not only move us toward the ultimate goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons worldwide but will, in their own right, reinvigorate the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, erect higher barriers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials by terrorist groups, and strengthen U.S. and international security. ¨(p45-p49)

15. 2010 VS 2002 VS

16. Change:
Shift its strategic focus: maintaining strategic deterrence→prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism
Decreased offensive: A parallel use of the arsenal as a deterrent against a biological or chemical attack has been rarely articulated but often implied

17. Reduce nuclear arms: While the United States and Russia have reduced deployed nuclear weapons by about 75 percent since the end of the Cold War, each still retains more nuclear weapons than necessary for stable deterrence; The United States will not conduct nuclear testing and will pursue ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Strategic Cooperation with existing nuclear powers (Russia, China, etc. )

18. BUT,
The cornerstone of American military strategy remains nuclear deterrent ;
Still based on seeking nuclear superiority;
New Triad continuing…

19. Conclusion:
The 2002 NPR emphasized the critical role of the nuclear weapons in the national security strategy, including the possibility to launch first strike, which might add the political tension between America and other countries.
As the 2010 NPR places the prevention of nuclear terrorism and proliferation at the top pf U.S policy agenda and decide to reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons, it is an important step of the US government towards a world free of nuclear-weapon and has a positive impact on the development of the world nuclear disarmament process and the achievement of nuclear safety objectives.
As the only country that has used nuclear weapons in actual combat and still has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, the United States is still seeking the absolute nuclear superiority and emphasizing the deterrent effect of nuclear forces and striving to build a more powerful nuclear power system to ensure the safety of the United States and its allies and partners.
Still a long way to go…