Putin and Russia in retro and forward: the nuclear dimension

Deterioration in security relations as between NATO and Russia reached boiling point in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent destabilization of Eastern Ukraine. As a result, some voices in the West look forward to the departure of Vladimir Putin from power, and others to the possible disintegration of Russia as a unitary state. However, both the departure of Putin and the collapse of Russia have a nuclear dimension. Putin has issued pointed reminders of Russia’s status as a nuclear great power, and Russian military doctrine allows for nuclear first use in the event of a conventional war with extremely high stakes. Beyond Putin, a breakup of Russia would leave political chaos in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and elsewhere, inviting ambiguous command and control over formerly Russian nuclear forces.     

The role of covariate balance in observational studies

Observational data are prevalent in many fields of research, and it is desirable to use this data to make causal inferences. Because this data is nonrandom, additional assumptions are needed in order to construct unbiased estimators for causal effects. The standard assumption is strong ignorability, though it is often impossible to achieve the level of covariate balance that it requires. As such, researchers often settle for lesser balance levels within their datasets. However, these balance levels are generally insufficient to guarantee an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect without further assumptions. This article presents several extensions to the strong ignorability assumption that address this issue. Under these additional assumptions, specific levels of covariate balance are both necessary and sufficient for the treatment effect estimate to be unbiased. There is a trade‐off, however: as balance decreases, stronger assumptions are required to guarantee estimator unbiasedness. These results unify parametric and nonparametric adjustment methods for causal inference and are actualized by the Balance Optimization Subset Selection framework, which identifies the best level of balance that can be achieved within a dataset. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 64: 323–344, 2017     

(Un)justified expectations on nuclear deterrence of non-nuclear NATO members: the case of Estonia and Latvia?

ABSTRACT

Nuclear assets are one of the cornerstones of credible collective deterrence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Paradoxically, the most endangered member states are the ones without nuclear capabilities, left with the hope and expectation that the owners of nuclear assets will defend them and that their potential enemies are deterred by these capabilities. However, the expectations from one side, practical commitment of allies from other side may not go in harmony and synchronisation. Is there a capability gap which needs to be fulfilled? If yes then, is the gap in the side of nuclear powers or is it on the side of those endangered states who need to understand what can or cannot realistically be expected? The current article focuses on the question of how the political and military elite of the Baltic states describes their expectations in terms of using Alliance's nuclear capabilities to deter Russia's regional ambitions.     

朝核问题对中国边境安全的影响

朝核问题一直是困扰东北亚地区安全的核心问题,自20世纪90年代第一次朝核危机至今．朝核问题不但没有得到妥善解决,反而更加复杂。2006年10月9日,朝鲜宣布成功进行了地下核试验,朝鲜半岛再一次成为全球关注的焦点。在前人研究的基础上,就朝核问题产生的背景,朝核问题对中国边境地区经济、地区稳定以及生态环境等方面产生的影响进行分析和探讨。     

核动力装置的(火用)分析

针对压水堆、沸水堆、气冷堆、钠冷堆核动力装置的实际过程,建立了最简单的热动力学模型.利用热力学第二定律建立的火用分析方法,对核动力装置中主要的热量传递、作功与受功过程的不可逆性进行了分析.文中以A型和B型电站压水堆核动力装置为实例进行的火用损失与火用效率的对比计算表明反应堆内裂变能从裂变碎片到燃料的传递过程是整个核动力力装置火用损失最大的地方,其次是堆内燃料元件导热过程,然后依次是汽轮机、蒸发器、冷凝器、管路、泵.而火用效率最低的地方是冷凝器,其次是汽轮机、堆内燃料元件、蒸发器.     

船用堆核事故状态下源项特性及计算方法研究

对船用堆核事故状态下的源项特性进行了描述,并对源项估算的数学模型和计算方法进行了研究和探讨;提出了快速估算法,进行了比对计算;在计算过程中对一些不确定参数用核电站的值代替,并采取适当的缩放,简化了计算过程.计算结果表明这样处理是可靠的.     

THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR LEARNING

This article seeks to elucidate the concept of nuclear learning. It explores both the “nuclear” and the “learning” aspects of the concept. On the nuclear side, it distinguishes between learning basic facts about nuclear arms and drawing inferences about the larger implications of those facts. On the learning side, it discusses three issues: whether to use the term in a normative or value-neutral manner; the difference between learning that leads to a change in means versus learning that leads to a re-evaluation of ends; and whether learning only takes place at the level of individuals or whether there can also be learning by collective entities. The article argues there is no universal best answer to these questions and that the particular concept of learning that should be employed depends on the goals of the analyst. If the goal is to reduce the chances of nuclear war, however, one type of learning that will be important to consider is whether there is shared, cross-national learning.     

Bomboozled: How the U.S. Government Misled Itself and Its People into Believing They Could Survive a Nuclear Attack

Bomboozled: How the U.S. Government Misled Itself and Its People into Believing They Could Survive a Nuclear Attack, by Susan Roy. Pointed Leaf Press, 2011. 176 pages, $45.     

PART II: CONTINUING TO QUESTION THE RELIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

Responding to Derrin Culp's critique, the author argues that distinguished nuclear theorists may be wrong because groups of experts have been wrong in the past, that city attacks are central to nuclear deterrence theory because killing civilians en masse is what nuclear weapons do best, and that understanding how effective city attacks would be in war is crucial to understanding how well they would work as threats. Moreover, while it is undeniable that nuclear deterrence works some of the time, this simply is not good enough. Because any failure of nuclear deterrence could end in catastrophic nuclear war, nuclear deterrence must be perfect or almost perfect. This is a very difficult standard to reach.     

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ON THE ROAD TO NUCLEAR ZERO

The disappointingly slow pace of progress on efforts to prevent proliferation, reduce nuclear weapons, and eliminate nuclear risks has many causes. The factor that might be easiest for individuals in the arms control and nonproliferation community to change stems from their own ambivalence about major questions that must be addressed on the road to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world to zero. This essay explores how ambivalence about four key issues—strategic stability, alliance relations, institution-building, and nuclear energy—often leads community members to take positions that play well at home and within their like-minded group but raise unintended impediments to achieving their own long-term goals. The author suggests alternative ways to handle these questions to improve the prospects for domestic and international agreement on practical measures that would eliminate, not perpetuate, nuclear risks.