Keeping the Bombs in the Basement: U.S. Nonproliferation Policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Or Rabinowitz ◽  
Nicholas L. Miller

How has the United States behaved historically toward friendly states with nuclear weapons ambitions? Recent scholarship has demonstrated the great lengths to which the United States went to prevent Taiwan, South Korea, and West Germany from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet seemingly on the other side of the ledger are cases such as Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, where the United States failed to prevent proliferation, and where many have argued that the United States made exceptions to its nonproliferation objectives given conflicting geopolitical goals. A reexamination of the history of U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, based on declassified documents and interviews, finds that these cases are not as exceptional as is commonly understood. In each case, the United States sought to prevent these states from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite geopolitical constraints. Moreover, once U.S. policymakers realized that prior efforts had failed, they continued to pursue nonproliferation objectives, brokering deals to prevent nuclear tests, public declaration of capabilities, weaponization, or transfer of nuclear materials to other states.

Author(s):  
Nicholas L. Miller

This chapter analyzes US policy toward all allied and unaligned countries that have pursued nuclear weapons since 1964, when the United States began moving toward an across-the-board nonproliferation policy. It demonstrates that even amongst friendly countries, the United States has consistently opposed the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The desire to prevent nuclear domino effects was an important motivation for these efforts, and helps explain why the United States sought to prevent nuclear tests even after it failed to prevent Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons. While there are several cases where the United States was selective in how it enforced nonproliferation, in none of these cases did the United States support the spread of nuclear weapons.


1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Arditi

This paper explores the opening of a discursive space within the etiquette literature in the United States during the 19th century and how women used this space as a vehicle of empowerment. It identifies two major strategies of empowerment. First, the use or appropriation of existing discourses that can help redefine the “other” within an hegemonic space. Second, and more importantly, the transformation of that space in shifting the lines by which differentiation is produced to begin with. Admittedly, these strategies are neither unique nor the most important in the history of women's empowerment. But this paper argues that the new discourses formulated by women helped forge a new space within which women ceased being the “other,” and helped give body to a concept of womanhood as defined by a group of women, regardless of how idiosyncratic that group might have been.


Author(s):  
Marc Trachtenberg

This chapter focuses on a document formally adopted by the NATO Council in December 1954, called MC 48, a report by the Alliance's Military Committee on “The Most Effective Pattern of NATO Military Strength for the Next Few Years.” In approving this document, the Council authorized the military authorities of the Alliance to “plan and make preparations on the assumption that atomic and thermonuclear weapons will be used in defense from the outset.” One very important consequence of the new strategy from the European point of view had to do with what was called “nuclear sharing”—that is, with the provision of American nuclear weapons to the NATO allies. This policy of nuclear sharing was one of the key elements in the history of this period.


Author(s):  
Wendy Gonaver

This chapter examines the life and writings of Superintendent John M Galt, and argues that the experience of heading an asylum in the United States South and the example of slaves hiring out prompted institutional innovation. Galt was the only American Superintendent to publicly endorse total non-restraint, reject racial segregation, and promote the cottage system of outpatient care. By showing that slavery provided the impetus for cost-saving initiatives that also maximized patients’ rights, this chapter connects the history of psychiatry with recent scholarship on slavery and modernity. Shunned by his peers in the Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane, Galt tried to establish a transnational network with superintendents in Brazil and Russia, two societies that were also shaped by systems of coercive labor.


1966 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 318
Author(s):  
Max Savelle ◽  
Louis Hartz ◽  
Kenneth D. McRae ◽  
Richard M. Morse ◽  
Richard N. Rosecrance ◽  
...  

1985 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Williams

Realignment theory is a recent but flourishing sub-branch of the study of American political parties. Over the last thirty years, the original suggestions of its inventor, V. O. Key, have been elaborated and refined in several directions and through several phases, gradually being modified to take variations in historical circumstances more carefully into account. Problems of the same kind often occur, and are likely to prove even less manageable, when efforts are made to apply the theory to another political system and culture as authors from both countries (and from neither) have in recent years tried, more or less explicitly, to use it to explain developments in the British party system. Some techniques travel quite well, and some useful insights can be obtained by looking afresh at familiar patterns in the light of similar experiences elsewhere. But the differences between the two nations and states preclude any rigorous attempt to apply a theory derived from the history of one country with a view to explaining the experiences of the other.


2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-254
Author(s):  
John Breeding

The history of modern psychiatry includes a legacy of coercion and infamous physical and mechanical treatments, on the one hand, and progress in human rights, particularly patient rights, on the other. The purpose of this article is to remind readers that this modern progress in psychiatry is more apparent than real. The author’s experience with recent cases in the mental health courts is discussed in order to demonstrate the ongoing abuse of human rights in psychiatry. A brief look at other aspects of the current mental health climate in the United States is also provided, along with considerations of informed consent.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document