Maybe I'm too much of a stickler for definitions, but I think the second, limited definition, is what most people think of when considering "deterrence." The first is either "influence" or "disincentive" or "dissuasion." I agree with a lot of what BW is saying, I just think using "deterrence" to include things like "improving governance" is only going to confuse people.
There seems to be a lot of overlap with "strategic influence." I'm reminded of this
RAND monograph I read a couple of years ago for a class:
Thoughts on this?
BW,
I'm not sure I agree with your premise. To begin with, all the nuclear powers but three are allies of the United States. For the exceptions - North Korea, China and Russia - there are many factors besides nuclear weapons for us to show greater respect for their sovereignty. Additionally, I don't think those three would argue the US shows their sovereignty much respect (Missile Defense, NATO expansion, Taiwan, human rights, proliferation security initiative, etc.)
Then, if you look at Iran, the perception that it seeks to develop weapons has increased calls to violate is sovereignty through military or covert action including regime change. One might therefore argue that pursuit of such weapons is more likely to result in violations of sovereignty.
Those states have told us directly where we are hypocritical: We actively oppose non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) acquiring legal dual-use technology while failing to take sufficient measures to abide by article VI of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT). We are attempting to get states to implement the additional protocol to the NPT, yet we are receiving significant pushback from the NNWS because of this perception of hypocrisy. Then there is our bilateral nuclear deal with India, which greatly damaged our credibility on nonproliferation and is arguably a violation of the spirit of the NPT.
So rather than make a declaration on the equality of sovereignty, it might be better for the US to make more efforts toward disarmament and at least rhetorically end the policy that the NNWS should not be blocked from acquiring sensitive nuclear technology.
Bookmarks