Bibilography

1. Bibilography Seay, E. (2011). NATO’s incredible nuclear strategy: Why U.S. weapons in Europe deter no one. Arms Control Today, 41(9) (Nov 2011), 8-11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/912304364?accountid=45988. Wojciech,L. (2009). Poland: Straddling the Nuclear Frontier. World Policy Journal, Volume XXVI, No3, Fall 2009, 51-61. Senn, M. (2012). Spoiler and enabler: The role of ballistic-missile defence in nuclear abolition. International Journal, 67(3), 747-764. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1173821402?accountid=45988 Elaine, M.G. (2012, Sep 13). Seeking kremlin engagement, NATO weighs next nuclear posture steps. National Journal, retrived from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1039555550?accountid=45988 Meier, O., & Ingram, P. (2010). A nuclear posture review for NATO. Arms Control Today, 40(8), 8-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/762230164?accountid=45988 Meier, O. (2010). NATO chief’s remark highlights policy rift. Arms Control Today, 40(4), 35-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/356761214?accountid=45988 Dempsey, J. (2012). What has happened to arms control? Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly, 104. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/963497699?accountid=45988

2. First article is interesting to all – good arguments for withdrawing the US TNW from Europe – does not contribute to deterrence, reassurance, signaling and burden sharing. All should read this article. Second article focused on TBMD in Poland. Some in Poland see TBMD and US troops in Poland as a US commitment to the security of Poland (reassurance argument). At the same time though, people fear that a TBMD system in Poland will become a target to Russian nuclear weapons. This speaks against withdrawing the US TNW since the US TNW could be perceived, by Poland, as the only reliable security guarantee that NATO currently provides to Poland. Third article: Argues that TBMD could replace the role of US TNW with regards to burden sharing (not as deterrent since TBMD is not a deterrent) Fourtharticle: The article says that “several Baltic and Central European nations” are arguing that US TNW in Europe continue to play an important role in warding off threats. There is varying levels of confidence among NATO nations as to whether NATO conventional forces will be a sufficient political and military deterrent to the possibility of a resurgent Russia. Interesting, but more official sources must be obtained. Short summary: ”Perception of Eastern European NATO countries”

3. Fifth article: Some central European and eastern European countries fear that changes in NATO policy could signal a weakening of collective defense commitments and a decoupling of US from Europe. Before they agree to a reduction in the role of US TNW, these countries are looking to the alliance to put in place stronger non-nuclear instruments of reassurance to fill a commitment gap. Good article with comprehensive bibliography. Sixth article: Along the same as above. Shorter article with good quotes. Last article: Short article on arms control. GE official quoted for saying: “the debate is more about their political value for Alliance cohesion and solidarity than about their real deterrence value”. Conclusion: Some good reading for all but limited relevance for the chapter on the percecption of Eastern European NATO countries. Need to dig deeper for relevant articles. New ideas: Maybe we should broaden our perspective to explicitly include a discussion of the TNW’s politcal value for alliance cohesion and solidarity? This may in fact already be included in our questions: Why does NATO keep the nuclear weapons, what are the arguments pro et con nuclear weapons in Europe? What is the perception of the role of NATO’s planned missile defence – does it replace nuclear deterrence? But it could be mentioned more explicitly. Short summary: ”Perception of Eastern European NATO countries”