User:Centipede67/Nuclear umbrella

South Korea

Following the Korean War, South Korea was welcomed under the US "nuclear umbrella" after signing the ROK-US mutual security treaty on October 1st, 1953.[6] This was characteristic of US defense and foreign policy at the time, which championed extended deterrence in an effort to prevent any nuclear conflict.[6] The agreement also aligned with the US nonproliferation objectives, by eliminating the need for South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons program. [7] In the ROK-US mutual security treaty, the US agreed to deter attacks against South Korea and defend them in the case of attacks, and to deploy troops at the Korean Demilitarized Zone.[8] The US also positioned tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, but these weapons were retracted by President Bush on September, 1991.[6] The US nuclear umbrella over South Korea has persisted for over 60 years, but there have been concerns about US commitment, with some voicing concerns about a "diminishing umbrella." [6] Nevertheless, most agree on the necessity and significance of the US nuclear umbrella and the ROK-US treaty for South Korea, and expect it to hold its place.[7][8]

Today, leaders in the Australian government publicly acknowledge the country's reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. Australia no longer faces immediate nuclear threats, but they do still rely on the US for protection in any future instances, making them one of 31 countries under the US nuclear umbrella.

United States

The United States has promised its role as a "nuclear umbrella" for numerous non-nuclear allied states, even as early as the Cold War.[4] The US now has security alliances of this nature with around 31 countries, many within NATO itself.[4] The country also has notable arrangements of this type with South Korea[2] and Australia.[4] The US understood the power of deterrence with nuclear weapons early on, beginning with the concept of massive retaliation during the Eisenhower Administration.[5] As the USSR and other countries became nuclear powers as well, however, the risk of any nuclear exchange became more clear.[5] This, in part, motivated the US to adopt the new strategy of deterrence, in which they would have more control over the situation, while still maintaining the ability to intervene in conflicts.[5]

a nuclear umbrella.More recently, however, concerns have been raised about the diminishing power of such a threat, due to the rapid increase of nuclear weapons of mass destruction across the globe. The strategy of deterrence remains unequivocally important for the country, but many argue that the US will face various new challenges when it comes to the rise of other nuclear powers and weapons of mass destruction.

The US provides provides protection and deterrence for various countries under its umbrella, and in turn, the countries do not pursue nuclear weapons programs themselves.Russia in particular has caused concern, having focused their military doctrine on nuclear weapons, as well as continued in the development of their weapons programs.Currently, the United States holds only some "nonstrategic" military weapons in Europe, and these nonstrategic weapons aid in reassuring countries under the umbrella, and emphasizing their role as a deterrent

South Korea
Following the Korean War, South Korea was welcomed under the US "nuclear umbrella" after signing the ROK-US mutual security treaty on October 1st, 1953. This was characteristic of US defense and foreign policy at the time, which championed extended deterrence in an effort to prevent any nuclear conflict. The agreement also aligned with the US nonproliferation objectives, by eliminating the need for South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons program. In the ROK-US mutual security treaty, the US agreed to deter attacks against South Korea and defend them in the case of attacks, and to deploy troops at the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

ANZUS
ANZUS is a security treaty between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States that was signed on September 1, 1951. This treaty was meant to assure peace in the South Pacific region. It was primarily as tactic against communist spread assuring Australia and New Zealand they would not be caught under communist grip. New Zealand, Australia, and the United States agreed to maintain and develop military resources to prevent an attack from communist countries in the Pacific. As late as 1970, Australia considered embarking on nuclear weapons development[7] but finally agreed to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then Australia has been a proponent of nuclear disarmament. New Zealand declared themselves as a nuclear free zone in 1984 which refused to allow US nuclear powered ships to make port in New Zealand. Thus, in 1986 the United States suspended its treaty with New Zealand, but kept it with Australia. Today, leaders in the Australian government publicly acknowledge the country's reliance on the US nuclear umbrella.[8] Australia no longer faces immediate nuclear threats, but they do still rely on the US for protection in any future instances, making them one of 31 countries under the US nuclear umbrella.[4]

Missile defense
Missile defense would provide an "umbrella" of another kind against nuclear attack. This is not the conventional usage of "nuclear umbrella", but a rhetorical device promoting active defense over the nuclear deterrence the conventional "nuclear umbrella" depends upon.[14] NATO had an expansive strategy with respect to missile defense. In 1999, it was concluded that they would need some form of defense against nuclear, biological, or chemical threats. One form of strategy was declared at the 2002 Prague Summit, the NATO Active Layered Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD). This was an extension to the deployed forces program in 2005, namely, guaranteeing their safety. One of the leading motivations for the strategic concept is that NATO centered on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and alternatives for weapons of mass destruction as being an incalculable threat to global life and prosperity. More recent, on March 6th, 2013 the first European theater missile interceptor system proved successful to work in conjunction with NATO's Interim Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) command and control system, such that it successfully engaged and destroyed a theater ballistic missile target set at the French Firing Range in Biscarrosse. Countries involved with NATO host various components of the NATO missile defense command and control systems. The United States contribution to the NATO BMD is through its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). Turkey hosts the United States BMD radar in Kürecik. Romania hosts a United States Aegis Ashore Site at Deveselu Air Base. Germany hosts the command center Ramstein Air Base. In addition to the EPAA, Spain holds four multi-mission BMD-capable Aegis Ships at the Rota Naval Base. With respect to all these constituents, they are in fact all voluntarily hosted. Outside of this there is additional composition of force protection and BMD capable-assets, that in the event of needed support, could be engaged. With the stakes of nuclear war implausibly comprehensive advocacy groups such as the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) were formed as a public initiative to cultivate an environment for the critical importance of supporting the funding and development of missile defense systems. The MDAA is a non-profit organization that has set out a mission for the general public advocacy for the testing, continued development, and deployment of missile defense systems and the urgent consequences of handicapping a missile defense system.