Skip to main content
  • 23 Accesses

Abstract

Almost everybody agrees that the process of nuclear disarmament should continue. The question which is much more controversial is whether the process of nuclear disarmament ultimately includes an NWFW. In this study we have tried to demonstrate that an NWFW, under specific conditions, is the least dangerous option in the long term, both from the point of view of every single human being and from that of each state. Two arguments are central to this debate: the enormous ‘costs’ of nuclear deterrence in general, and the threat of nuclear proliferation in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Some French politicians went further by proposing a dual-key system to with regard the American nuclear weapons in Europe. However, this seems a minority point of view. Philippe Séguin, ‘A rebuttal: Why France’s Nuclear Plan is serious’, in: The International Herald Tribune, 6 September 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, ‘Comment passer a la phase de simulation?’, in: Le Figaro, 13 October 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stuart Croft, ‘European integration, nuclear deterrence and Franco-British nuclear cooperation’, in: International Affairs, October 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Speech to the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale, 7 September 1995. Quoted by Martin Butcher, ‘Nuclear weapons in the European Union’, in: CESD Issues in European Security, Brussels, May 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Swedish Prime Minister Carlsson, in: Reuter News Reports, 6 September 1995; Pascal Boniface, ‘When testing undercuts deterrence’, in: International Herald Tribune, 13 July 1995

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dominique Moïsi, ‘The urge to be different’, in: Financial Times, 25 July 1995

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dominique Moïsi, ‘Chirac of France’, in: Foreign Affairs, November/December 1995, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  8. David Yost, ‘Europe and Nuclear Deterrence’, in: Survival, Autumn 1993, p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rudi Dornbusch, ‘Euro Fantasies’, in: Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. Milton Friedman, ‘Europa vernietigt zichzelf’, in: Trends, 21 November 1996

    Google Scholar 

  11. Charles Goodhart, ‘EMU komt er niet in 1999’, in: Financieel-Economische Tijd, 11 October 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1998 Tom Sauer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sauer, T. (1998). Conclusion. In: Nuclear Arms Control. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26729-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics