Providing other states, who do not posses nuclear capabilities, with your own nuclear protection, especially in the wake of a threat. This can protect many individuals and the weapons are usually physically put in place.
This is also a method of deterrence
To be precise; nuclear umbrella is provided by a powerful nuclear country (e.g., US) to deter another potentially aggressive country (e.g., Soviet Union) from attacking a non-nuclear ally of the first (Japan, W. Germany, etc…)
Also, being under the protection of a nuclear umbrella from a more powerful nuclear country relieves the non-nuclear country (Japan, Germany) from any requirement to develop nuclear weapons themselves.
Yep! Great. Note that I’m looking for reasons to be convinced that you understand these terms. Kevin’s proposition is such a convincing piece of information.
Could a nuclear umbrella be considered a sort of trip-wire strategy?
I think it does has similarities to trip wire with the exception that it is not troops but bombs that would be destroyed. I think the main point of a nuclear umbrella would be second strike capabilitie.
A method of deterrence in which a nuclear actor provides nuclear protection to a non-nuclear ally against other nuclear powers. Not only does this imply second-strike capabilities on the behalf of the nuclear actor, but it also implies that the non-nuclear actor will have less motivation to develop nuclear weapons themselves.
A Nuclear Umbrella is a when a nuclear superpower extends protection over smaller allied nations to deter a potential aggressor with nuclear power from attacking those small nations. This gives the nuclear power of the large nation to the small ones, for example the US extending a nuclear umbrella over Europe during the Cold War.
Providing other states, who do not posses nuclear capabilities, with your own nuclear protection, especially in the wake of a threat. This can protect many individuals and the weapons are usually physically put in place.
This is also a method of deterrence
To be precise; nuclear umbrella is provided by a powerful nuclear country (e.g., US) to deter another potentially aggressive country (e.g., Soviet Union) from attacking a non-nuclear ally of the first (Japan, W. Germany, etc…)
Also, being under the protection of a nuclear umbrella from a more powerful nuclear country relieves the non-nuclear country (Japan, Germany) from any requirement to develop nuclear weapons themselves.
Yep! Great. Note that I’m looking for reasons to be convinced that you understand these terms. Kevin’s proposition is such a convincing piece of information.
Could a nuclear umbrella be considered a sort of trip-wire strategy?
I think it does has similarities to trip wire with the exception that it is not troops but bombs that would be destroyed. I think the main point of a nuclear umbrella would be second strike capabilitie.
A method of deterrence in which a nuclear actor provides nuclear protection to a non-nuclear ally against other nuclear powers. Not only does this imply second-strike capabilities on the behalf of the nuclear actor, but it also implies that the non-nuclear actor will have less motivation to develop nuclear weapons themselves.
A Nuclear Umbrella is a when a nuclear superpower extends protection over smaller allied nations to deter a potential aggressor with nuclear power from attacking those small nations. This gives the nuclear power of the large nation to the small ones, for example the US extending a nuclear umbrella over Europe during the Cold War.