| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
091876
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A critical debate on nuclear weapons is once again in the limelight. President Barack Obama has unequivocally, ambitiously, and repeatedly stated his ultimate vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Under the Obama policy, zero nuclear weapons is, for the first time in U.S. history, an operational, tangible U.S. policy goal and thus a measuring stick against which to judge a host of shorter-range, less ambitious initiatives or actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
151336
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the next four years, North Korea is poised to cross a dangerous threshold by finally developing the capability [1] to hit the continental United States with a nuclear missile. That ability would present a direct threat [2] to the United States and could punch a hole in the U.S. nuclear umbrella in Asia: Japan and South Korea, doubtful that Washington would risk U.S. cities to defend Tokyo or Seoul, might feel they had no choice but to get their own nuclear bombs. U.S. President Donald Trump, while still president-elect, drew a redline at Pyongyang’s feet, tweeting [3], “It won’t happen!” But the real question is how to stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157697
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
TERENCE ROEHRIG argues that military, strategic, and moral considerations make it unlikely that the United States would use nuclear weapons to defend South Korea. He claims that the U.S. nuclear umbrella has served as a political tool used to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to South Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|