U.S. Allies Prefer Having A Conventional Deterrents Over A Nuclear One

BUSON STOP
U.S. Navy ships from the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group and U.S. 7th Fleet flagship USS Blue Ridge are moored at the Republic of Korea Navy Base Oryuk-Do in Busan, South Korea, March 12, 2009. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew Schwarz

Nations Look Increasingly To U.S. Conventional Forces for Deterrence -- Global Security Newswire

OMAHA, Neb. -- A number of Asian and European nations appear increasingly willing to rely on U.S. conventional forces to deter regional conflicts, suggesting a reduced dependence on forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons, issue experts said at a conference here last week (see GSN, April 8).

In terms of extended deterrence -- in which the United States guarantees to protect other nations from attack -- "it doesn't really make sense to differentiate between strategic weapons and conventional weapons" unless new regional threats emerge, said Changsu Kim, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a think tank affiliated with South Korea's Defense Ministry.

Read more ....

My Comment: I can see where this argument is going. Policy and strategic thinking is now evolving to the idea that having a nuclear deterrent at sea, (or on a U.S. missile base in the U.S.) would serve as a deterrent just as well as if the nuclear weapon was in a forward position such as in South Korea.

There is some logic to this argument, but I have a funny feeling that the main reason why policy and strategic thinkers are thinking like this is that they want to cut corners and save money. Nuclear weapons are very expensive to maintain, while conventional forces involves less monies and more options.

My prediction .... short/medium range missiles will become a thing of the past, with strategic weapons and their equivalents becoming the main tool used as a nuclear deterrent against a nuclear foe.