Nuclear sharing entails the sharing of state resources to meet military atomic capability. The decision to seek nuclear sharing can be deliberate or through a permissive transfer (Schofield 2014, p.2). These resources counter a current or possible attack perpetrated by an enemy. Nuclear sharing has a central aim of initiating change through access to vital resources, security improvement, and hamper adversarial influence (Schofield 2014, p.22). While most people deem military resources sharing as an inappropriate move, most global countries find themselves in search of nuclear machinery support from other nations. The increasing cases of instabilities occurring across various global segments create a strain on the local resources. This prompt nations to seek support from potential societies that utilize nuclear technologies. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) offers an imperative strategic framework that guides nuclear weapon sharing among states across the globe. The book offers viable insights for readers.
The book Strategic Nuclear Sharing by Julian Schofield addresses the nuclear sharing weapons approach among global states. One of the central ideas is that states fail to share nuclear machinery due to existing agreements with adversarial donors. When a state reaches out to a donor for the provision of nuclear weapons, the two enter a contract that negates resource sharing. Thus, a nation utilizing nuclear weapons technologies may not provide any form of assistance to another country in need. Notably, states fear losing their status, power, and influence to other global communities. The existence of fear linked to proliferation may affect sharing (Schofield 2014, p.4). Therefore, the move to safeguard alliance relations calls for the elimination of nuclear weapon sharing. It is also vital noting that the dangers of escalation act as another potential reason for not sharing these essential resources. However, in rare cases, nuclear sharing may be a viable approach, especially when it pertains to security. Democratic states are more likely to share nuclear weapons with other democratic nations. However, the decision is often hectic since there is no guarantee of peace and unity. Thus, the book highlights a lack of sharing as the central idea. There is greater reluctance amongst the political leaders that access to nuclear weapons helps to achieve peace. Other factors, such as existing agreements and fears linked to proliferation, also play a vital role. Schofield goes ahead to state that weapon sharing is a move that arises from miscalculations, and the presence of fragmented decision-making processes fails to guarantee the development and implementation of the right decisions (Schofield 2014, p.3). This leaves interested parties reluctant to share nuclear weapons due to a lack of confidence in attaining positive outcomes. Various researchers continue to criticize the ideas offered by the author.
Sharing nuclear weapons is an initiative that can assist nations in developing stability by maintaining peace across various global segments. Schofield notes that reluctance to share essential weapons relates to fears among politicians that the approach has minimal contribution in developing peace (2014, p.7). However, research shows that nuclear sharing enhances strategic effectiveness by availing a broader and quality array of force options (Mattelaer 2019, p.3). The move helps non-nuclear weapons states to develop a voice. Also, it provides an opportunity to develop cohesion through access to benefits, responsibilities, and risks. According to Mattelaer (2019, p.2), states belonging to a notable organization such as NATO can achieve political cohesion through nuclear-sharing. Countries possessing the machinery should thus offer assistance to needy states. Considering the expensive status of manufacturing and purchasing atomic weapons, nations should be willing to share their resources with the less-developed countries across the world. The provision of these technological devices offers a chance to develop safety and security globally. Van der Meer (2016, p.215) supports the idea that nuclear sharing aids in enhancing security by arguing that these weapons act as a survival mechanism. These powerful tools provide valuable security in case of any external threat. Thus, a state will most likely think twice before harming another due to the fear of nuclear destruction. Sharing is, therefore, an effective means of developing global safety and security for all populations. Further research shows that nuclear weapon sharing is a valuable strategy.
Nuclear weapon sharing helps to meet nonproliferation and deterrence. Research by Sechser (2016, p.6) shows that the United States continues to maintain 200 nuclear warheads in the European region with numerous calls to avail the same to the Korean Peninsula segment. This shows that the approach has greatly aided in instilling fear linked to possible consequences associated with an attack. Additionally, none of the states has so lost influence over the other in the course of their agreement. Potential enemies are forced to abandon their plans due to the fear of a possible retaliation supported by mass nuclear weapons. Notably, it helps eliminate the spread of distinct forms of instabilities that could make the region unsafe for the people. Thus, the research contradicts Schofield (2014, p.7), who argues that sharing nuclear weapons offer no guarantee of peace and unity among global nations. The author also further states that the practice goes against agreements made between a donor and a particular state. The development of a quality strategy by NATO to guide nuclear sharing remains an essential perspective. It offers states a chance to integrate both conventional and nuclear capabilities to handle any form of threat. Kamp and Robertus (2011, p.76) reveals that the provision of a mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities remains a core element of NATO’s strategy to offer vital assistance to worldwide states in dire need of physical support. Weapon sharing remains an essential perspective due to the quality aid provided by powerful nations to the less-advanced communities under threat of an enemy.
Nuclear weapon sharing remains a major debatable issue across global regions. While some stakeholders support its integration in the modern community, other individuals overlook its use due to the lack of viable results. The “Strategic Nuclear Sharing” article disregards the sharing practice since it offers no promise of peace and security. Whereas the strategy is expected to provide security, politicians believe that it fails to meet and address security concerns. Furthermore, sharing goes against the agreements made by donors and a respective state, fear that proliferation will affect alliance, and possible dangers of escalation jeopardize the integration of policies on nuclear weapons sharing. However, other researchers agree that sharing enhances security since it provides countries with an advanced capacity to manage attacks. Global states are in a better position to integrate both conventional and nuclear capabilities to address possible risks and threats. Overall, the sharing of nuclear weapons is an issue that continues to attract the attention of various stakeholders. However, policies put in place by organizations such as NATO continues to offer global states the opportunity to integrate weapon sharing practices to address risks and threats facing their communities.
Kamp, Karl-Heinz, and Robertus CN Remkes. “Options for NATO nuclear sharing arrangements.” Reducing Nuclear Risks in Europe: A Framework for Action (2011): 76-95.
Mattelaer, Alexander. “Articulating the logic of nuclear-sharing.” (2019). Security Policy Brief. 1-5.
Schofield, Julian. Strategic nuclear sharing. Springer (2014): 1-131.
Sechser, Todd S. “Sharing the Bomb: How foreign nuclear deployments shape nonproliferation and deterrence.” The Nonproliferation Review 23, no. 3-4 (2016): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2016.1259062
Van der Meer, Sico. “States’ motivations to acquire or forgo nuclear weapons: Four factors of influence.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 17, no. 1 (2016): 209-220.