Israel’s National Security Policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuck Freilich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Control Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Regional Power ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Demographic Challenges

Israel has responded to the uniquely harsh strategic environment it has faced ever since its establishment by developing defensive capabilities totally disproportionate to its size and has become a regional power, its existence no longer truly in doubt. Nevertheless, Israel continues to face the severe threats of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, rockets, and cyberattacks, primarily from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas; the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians; and demographic challenges. This article presents both the fundamental changes that have taken place in Israel’s strategic environment, from conventional, state-based threats to primarily asymmetrical ones, and the responses it has developed to date. It also addresses Israel’s relations with the United States and other primary international actors, as well as Israel’s nuclear and regional arms control policy.

America, Russia, and the Future of Arms Control

2001 ◽  
Vol 100 (648) ◽  
pp. 323-329
Author(s):  
Jack Mendelsohn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future

The Bush administration's national security policies, if fully and unilaterally implemented, will severely stress United States relations with Russia and China. … These policies would also deal a serious blow to the international treaty regimes developed over the past 30 years to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction and that continue to enjoy universal support and approval.

Iraq: The Shifting Sands of Preemptive Self-Defense

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Sapiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
September 11 Terrorist Attacks

The United States articulated a new concept of preventive self-defense last fall that is designed to preclude emerging threats from endangering the country. Rising like a phoenix from the ashes of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the preventive approach to national security is intended to respond to new threats posed by “shadowy networks of individuals [who] can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank.” The Bush administration wisely concluded that it could not rely solely upon a reactive security posture, due to the difficulty in deterring potential attacks by those determined to challenge the United States and the magnitude of harm that could occur from weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands. Although the administration has characterized its new approach as “preemptive,” it is more accurate to describe it as “preventive” self-defense. Rather than trying to preempt specific, imminent tiireats, the goal is to prevent more generalized threats from materializing.

Let’s Make a (Smart) Deal: Biodiplomacy in the Age of Trump

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Blaine Hearn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Comprehensive Strategy

Abstract North Korea poses significant risks to national security as it continues to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). On February 28, 2019, United States President Donald Trump announced that he would be departing his second summit with Kim Jong Un without having reached a deal regarding the denuclearization of North Korea. This anticlimactic outcome followed weeks of media buildup surrounding the two leaders’ meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam; however, negotiators from both countries have pledged to continue their efforts at crafting a deal. As they continue this endeavor, those with a seat at the negotiating table must recognize that the most prudent path forward for the United States is to ensure that any such disarmament deal also address North Korea’s capacity to develop of biological weapons (BWs) in addition to nuclear and chemical capabilities as part of a comprehensive strategy.

Preventing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: What Role for Arms Control? A German-American Dialogue - Oliver Thränert (ed.) Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 1999, 154 pp. ISBN:3-86077-833-1. Friedrick-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastraße 17, D-10785 Berlin, Germany.

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-118
Author(s):  
Henrietta Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Economic Weight

The geopolitical positions currently occupied by the United States and Germany should be of interest to students of international arms control regimes. The former enters the twenty-first century empowered by its political, military, and economic weight, yet unable to respond to the global responsibilities entailed by this. In contrast, Germany has come to represent the less militaristic aspects of modern Western sensibilities, and has had to face the political problems of post-cold-war Europe more directly than other Western states.

Security Council: Disarmament Commission

1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-159
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Military Installations ◽  
Military Equipment ◽  
Secure Information

The Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission (France, Soviet Union, Canada, United Kingdom, United States) met in London, May 13–June 22. Following discussion of possible approaches for the Sub-Committee, the Soviet representative presented a draft resolution11 prohibiting unconditionally weapons of mass destruction and asking the Security Council to effect an international agreement to guarantee enforcement of that prohibition. Permanent members of the Security Council would reduce by one-third conventional military equipment and personnel within a year. The draft recommended the convening by the Security Council of a conference to effect reduction of armaments by all states and to abolish military installations on foreign territories. The Soviet representative attacked parts of the United Nations Majority Plan for Control of Atomic Energy, stating that the United States desired to monopolize nuclear secrets and to secure information on Soviet armaments without prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Hedging between the United States and China? South Korea’s ideology-driven behavior and its implications for national security

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-hyung Kim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Secondary State ◽  
Cooperation Partner

Abstract Given the limits of the prevailing hedging account for Seoul’s puzzling behavior that is in conformity with the interests of its adversary (i.e. North Korea) and potential threat (i.e. China) rather than those of its principal ally (i.e. the United States) and security cooperation partner (i.e. Japan), this article emphasizes the impact of the progressive ideology on Seoul’s security policy. In doing so, it calls for attention to a domestic source of ideology in explaining the security behaviors of a secondary state, which is under-researched and thus is poorly understood.

24. The War in Iraq

2020 ◽  
pp. 587-611
Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Operation Iraqi Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
The Troubles ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Iraqi Freedom

This chapter focuses on the Iraq war of 2003–11 and the troubles in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s advisers, led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, had been considering an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. At the same time, many experts within the government pointed to the lack of any evidence for Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States. The threats to US national security were outlined to Bush in a briefing just prior to his inauguration; these threats came primarily from al-Qaeda’s terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The chapter first considers the US decision to invade Iraq, before discussing the war, taking into account the US’s Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war’s costs to the US and to Iraq. It also examines the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and concludes with an assessment of the ‘Arab Spring’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document