The next couple of weeks are all extended deterrence for me — I am teaching a course on the subject in Monterey, focusing on the decision to retire the TLAM-N as a case study, and making some remarks at another event back in Washington the week after.
And, I’ve penned a short op-ed for the Lowy Institute’s blog, The Interpreter, that starts with a heresy: there is no such thing as the nuclear umbrella.
Then I move on to all sort of other impermissible suggestions, concluding that maybe we should stop talking about extended deterrence as though it were somehow distinct from what I am inclined to call core deterrence — the central mission of nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attacks against the US, our forces abroad and our allies and partners.
Rory Medcalf asked me to cross-post it, but really, you should go to The Interpreter and read all the submissions (and not just mine!) in what is a lively debate on the question “Is Extended Deterrence Dead?” Rory, George Perkovich, Bruno Tertrais, Shen Dingli and others have penned thoughtful contributions.