Middle East Studies

at the Marine Corps University

MES Monographs • No. 4 April 2013

To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club:

How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons:

Lessons from and for the Middle East

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer

Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor” Model for

Managing Deterrence

George Perkovich

Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya

Revised and Expanded Edition • September 2013
Middle East Studies

Monograph Series

As part of its mission to broaden U.S. Marine Corps access to

information and analysis through publishing, Middle East Studies at

Marine Corps University (MES) has established different

mechanisms to disseminate relevant publications, including a

Monograph Series. The aim of the MES Monograph Series is to

publish original research papers on a wide variety of subjects

pertaining to the Middle East and South and Central Asia. The focus

of the Monograph Series is on timely subjects with strategic

relevance to current and future concerns of the U.S. Professional

Military Education community.

This issue is a revised and expanded version of the fourth issue of

the MES Monograph Series that featured two papers presented by

Dr. Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Assistant Professor at the

Norwegian Defence University College, and Dr. George Perkovich,

Vice President for Studies and Director of the Nuclear Policy

Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as part

of a workshop entitled “To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club: How

Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons.” The workshop was

sponsored by the Minerva Research Initiative and held at Marine

Corps University. This issue includes a forward by former Minerva

Chair Dr. Norman Cigar and his research assistant Stephanie Kramer

as well as rapporteur notes prepared by the Public International Law

& Policy Group. I thank Dr. Cigar and Ms. Kramer for their sustained

support of the work of MES while working as part of the Minerva

team.

The MES Monograph Series will be available both in print and electronically through the MES website at www.mcu.usmc.mil under the

“Middle East” tab as well as on Facebook at middleeaststudies.mcu.

For information on obtaining print copies, please contact Mr. Adam

C. Seitz, Senior Associate at MES, at seitzac@grc.usmcu.edu,

telephone number (703) 432-5260.

We welcome comments from readers on the content of the series as

well as recommendations for future monograph topics.

Amin Tarzi

Director, Middle East Studies

Marine Corps University

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do

not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the

Department of Defense, the U.S. Marine Corps, or Marine Corps

University.
M

iddleEastStudies

atthe

MarineCorpsUniversity
Contents

• Forward...............................................................................p ii

Norman Cigar and Stephanie Kramer, Marine Corps University

• Workshop Agenda.............................................................p v

• Rapporteur Notes ..............................................................p 1

Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG)

• Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya......p 12

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College

• Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons 

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor” Model 

for Managing Deterrence..................................................p 23

George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Contributors......................................................................p 29
Forward

by Norman Cigar and Stephanie Kramer, Marine Corps University

This publication consists of the proceedings of a conference and workshop entitled “To Join Or Not to Join

the Nuclear Club: How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons.” Our purpose in holding this conference and

workshop, as part of the Minerva Research Initiative, was to gain a better understanding of the

multidimensional aspects of how regional powers decide whether or not to acquire and retain nuclear

weapons by using case studies from around the globe. This issue is particularly salient for the Middle East

at present, and the conference and the ensuing discussions both take lessons from and provide lessons for

the region. Of the cases studied here, four of the six are from that region, while insights gleaned from the

experience of countries in other parts of the world are also clearly relevant to the situation in the Middle East.

Scholars and policymakers have long sought to understand why some countries decide to embark on a

nuclear path while other do not, and many of their insights, or models, may be helpful in analyzing these case

studies and, conversely, conclusions drawn from these case studies may support, qualify, or call into

question certain facets of such models. Efforts over the years to develop a universal model to explain

nuclear proliferation have deepened our understanding of the phenomenon but have not generated a

consensus, despite a substantial amount of scholarly literature.[1]

Analytical approaches have coalesced into models relying, in broad terms, on “realism” or on “idealism.”

Both models are in a sense deterministic, each in its way, and, while contributing insights into the phenomenon of proliferation, have difficulty in accounting for decisionmaking that does not conform to constraints

suggested by these models. The realist perspective of nuclear proliferation, in its essence, has focused on

international security threats (especially nuclear ones), coupled to the absence of adequate alternative options

such as reliable alliances, as the stimulus for states to pursue nuclear weapons.[2] An alternative idealist

approach views the preceding model as weakened by the many exceptions of countries that do not follow

that path as would be posited by the realist model, and relies on national, cultural, or individual aspects as

an analytical and explanatory tool. An extension of the idealist model sees as key, in particular, the

psychology of individual decisionmakers, who respond to national security threats based on a psychological national identity, for “the decision to acquire nuclear weapons is not only a means to the end of getting

them; it is also an end in itself, a matter of self-expression ... The oppositional nationalist's emotional

impulsions in this direction are so strong that the mere arrival in power of such a leader is practically a

sufficient condition to spark a decision to build the bomb."[3]

Other scholars, such as Scott D. Sagan and Peter R. Lavoy, have developed models intended to provide a

more comprehensive analytical framework by combining perspectives from both approaches, recognizing

the need to adapt analysis to a variety of countries characterized by complex security, social, political, and

[1] Tanya Ogilvie-White carried out a particularly comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various

theoretical approaches in “Is There a Theory of Nuclear Proliferation? An Analysis of the Contemporary Debate,” The

Nonproliferation Review, iv, 1, Fall 1996, 43-60.

[2] For an elaborated version of this model by its originator see, Kenneth N. Waltz, “Toward Nuclear Peace,” in Robert J. Art

and Kenneth N. Waltz, eds., The Use of Force (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 527-55.

[3] Jacques E. C. Hymans, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006), 35-36.

C ii igar and Kramer
economic dynamics by relying on an assessment of multiple variables.[4]

Participants in the conference were encouraged to consider such factors as threat perceptions, the

interpretation of lessons learned from the experience of other countries, the calculus of perceived costs and

benefits for national security, the envisioned modes of employment of nuclear weapons (political and

military), a country's specific political decisionmaking process and its institutions, and the legal/ethical

considerations—all from the perspective of regional actors. An understanding of how actual and potential

regional nuclear powers make decisions on the nuclear issue, of the motivations, and of the perceived

utility of nuclear weapons from the perspective of recent and potential nuclear powers, can provide insights

that can contribute to the crafting of more effective U.S. and multilateral nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and deterrence strategies.

The conference was held at the General Gray Research Center, the Marine Corps University, Quantico, on

31 January 2012. Major General Susan Y. Desjardins, USAF, Director of Plans and Policy, U.S. Strategic

Command, provided the keynote address, in which she assessed U.S. military perspectives and the U.S.

policy on nuclear proliferation.

In the morning session, panels examined three sets of case studies: countries that had the capability to

acquire nuclear weapons, or actually did so, but decided to relinquish or decline that option (South Africa

and Libya), countries that have developed a nuclear capability (Pakistan and North Korea), and countries that

may be considering a nuclear option (Iran and Saudi Arabia).

In a follow-on afternoon workshop, a select number of renowned experts in nuclear and regional studies

participated in three break-out groups, mirroring the three morning panels, in order to continue broader

discussions and to synthesize some of the issues brought up previously.

We were fortunate to be able to host a broad spectrum of the leading authorities on nuclear issues from

academia, the policy community, the military, think tanks, and the media from both the United States and

from the regions under discussion both as participants and as members of the audience.

Both the papers that were presented and the subsequent discussions highlighted the commonalities and

distinctive features inherent in each individual case, and the daunting complexity of finding a universal

model to account for the diversity in the regional security situations, threat perceptions, and strategic cultures.

Perhaps the broadest commonality which emerged was that of the uncertainty connected with the forecasting the decision to adopt or relinquish nuclear weapons, which contribute to the uncertainty and risks that

are part of the challenge which the United States and the international community face in dealing, in

particular, with cases such as those of Iran and North Korea.

The text published here contains an account of the panel proceedings and of the discussions in the subsequent

break-out groups. We are including the text of two case studies presented by Dr. Målfrid BrautHegghammer, of the Norwegian Defence University College, “Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study

of Libya,” and by Dr. George Perkovich, of the Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, “Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons and Challenges to the

‘Unitary Rational Actor’ Model for Managing Deterrence.” These two papers were selected for their

particular insights on differing paths taken by two countries in the greater Middle East region—Libya and

Pakistan—with one having decided to relinquish its nuclear program while the other decided to acquire a

military nuclear capability. Other complete papers are being published separately.

We are indebted to Dr. Paul Williams, President, and Mr. Tyler Thompson, Ceasefires Fellow—both of the

Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG)—for making rapporteurs available to record and

synthesize the proceedings. PILPG is a non-profit organization that operates as a global pro bono law firm

[4] Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security, xxi,

Winter 1996-97, 54-86, and Peter R. Lavoy, “Nuclear Proliferation over the Next Decade: Causes, Warning Signs, and Policy

Responses,” The Nonproliferation Review, xiii, 3, November 2006, 434-54.

iii Nuclear Workshop
iv

The Minerva Initiative is a Department of Defense (DoD)-sponsored, university-based social science

research initiative launched by the Secretary of Defense in 2008 focusing on areas of strategic importance

to U.S. national security policy. The goal is to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural,

behavioral, and political forces that shape critical regions of the world. The Minerva

Initiative funds projects at American universities and, since 2010, research chairs at

professional military education institutions.

Minerva Program Site: http://minerva.dtic.mil/

Minerva at MCU: http://minerva.marinecorpsuniversity.org

to provide free legal assistance to states and governments involved in peace negotiations, advise states on

drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assist in prosecuting war criminals. To facilitate the utilization of

this legal assistance, PILPG also provides policy formulation advice and training on matters related to

conflict resolution. The PILPG rapporteurs—Tyler Thompson (team leader), Ivan Carpio, Cindy Gierhart,

Margret Gonzales, David Jims, Josh Kuyers, Clarissa Pintado, and Erica Tokar—recorded and synthesized

the proceedings and produced the transcript appearing here.

The conference was made possible through the generosity of the Minerva Research Initiative, the Marine

Corps University, and the Marine Corps University Foundation. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Amin

Tarzi and Mr. Joel Westa of the Marine Corps University for their valuable professional input and advice in

the planning of this conference, and to Major General Thomas M. Murray, USMC, former President,

Marine Corps University, and Dr. Jerre W. Wilson, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Marine Corps

University, for their support and encouragement at every stage of the process.

----------

Cigar and Kramer
0805-0815 Introductory Remarks

MajGen Thomas Murray, President MCU

0815-0900 Morning Keynote Presentation

Major General Susan Y. Desjardins, USAF, Director of Plans and Policy, U.S. Strategic Command

0915-1015 Panel 1: Relinquished Nuclear Powers

Chair: Mr. Paul Bernstein, National Defense University Center for WMD

South Africa: Mr. Frank V. Pabian, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Libya: Dr. Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College

1020-1120 Panel 2: States Possessing a Nuclear Capability

Chair: Ms. Sharon Squassoni, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Pakistan: Dr. George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

North Korea: Mr. Joel S. Wit, U.S.-Korea Institute, SAIS

1135-1235 Panel 3: Potential Nuclear Powers

Chair: Dr. Amin Tarzi, Marine Corps University

Iran: Dr. Olli Heinonen, Harvard Belfer Center

Saudi Arabia: Dr. Norman Cigar, Marine Corps University

1235-1245 Closing Remarks for Plenary Session

1300-1515 Lunch and Follow–On Discussion in Breakout Groups

Group 1: States That Declined to Develop or Gave Up Their Nuclear Program

Group 2: States Possessing Nuclear Capability

Group 3: Possible/Potential Nuclear Powers

1530-1630 Reconvene, Report, Conclusions, Final Discussions

1630-1645 Closing Remarks

Workshop Agenda

v Nuclear Workshop
Breakout Session Participants

Group 1: States That Declined to Develop or Gave Up Their Nuclear Program

Paul Bernstein (Moderator) Senior Research Fellow, NDU Center for Center for the Study of WMD

Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer Norwegian Defence University College

Frank V. Pabian Los Alamos National Laboratory, Visiting Fellow, CISAC

Mark Jansson Deputy Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, CSIS

Bruce MacDonald Senior Director, Nonproliferation & Arms Control Program, USIP

Francis Marlo Faculty, Command and Staff, MCU

Sharon Weiner Professor, School of International Service, American University

Hugh Gusterson Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, George Mason University

Mahdi Obeidi Author and Nuclear Scientist

Yuki Tatsumi Senior Associate, Stimson Center

Group 2: States Possessing a Nuclear Capability

Sharon Squassoni (Moderator) Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, CSIS

George Perkovich VP for Studies, Director of Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment

Joel S. Wit Visiting Fellow, U.S.-Korea Institute, SAIS

Damon Franklin A10, Strategic Deterrence & Nuclear Integration Office

Paul Kerr Analyst, Congressional Research Service

Lt Col Everett Lilya, USAF Chief, Operations and Strategy, European Liaison Office, EUCOM, Pentagon

Zia Mian Researcher, Princeton University

Nima Gerami Research Fellow, NDU Center for Center for the Studyof WMD

Group 3: Potential Nuclear Powers

Amin Tarzi (Moderator) Director, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University

Olli Heinonen Senior Fellow, Harvard Belfer Center

Norman Cigar Minerva Research Chair, Marine Corps University

Michael Adler Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies, Washington Institute

Chen Kane Senior Research Associate, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Adam C. Seitz Senior Reseach Associate, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University

Douglas B. Shaw Elliott School, George Washington University

Lt Col Jim Dishaw, USAF A10, Strategic Deterrence & Nuclear Integration Office

Col Samuel L. McNiel, USAF Deputy Staff Director, U.S. Nuclear Risk Reduction Center

Lawrence Scheinman Distinguished Professor, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Cigar and Kramer iv
Rapporteur Notes

Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG)

Panel I: Relinquished Nuclear Powers: South Africa and Libya

The first panel of speakers analyzed states that have relinquished their nuclear weapons and provided

lessons learned from these cases.

Mr. Frank Pabian discussed how South Africa’s capability and motivation precipitated its nuclear program.

South Africa is home to a large supply of natural uranium, which the state supplied to the United Kingdom

and the United States during the Cold War. Additionally, after benefitting from U.S. scientific training, South

Africa began developing its own indigenous uranium enrichment process. South Africa was also motivated

by the notion that it was a “first world nation in a third world continent” and thought that it must act as a

“bulwark against Communism” in the region. When P.W. Botha took power in September 1978, he instituted

his “Total Strategy,” which included a nuclear program that he believed acted as an equalizer, stabilizer, and

insurance policy in an uncertain world, as well as a guarantee to protect its domestic system of apartheid. A

changing world, however, made South Africa’s nuclear program much less necessary, with increased stability

in the region and the end of the Cold War. Increased scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy

Association (IAEA) caused South Africa to reveal the existence of six or more nuclear weapons in March

1993. Nevertheless, South Africa justified its nuclear program and uranium enrichment under the

framework of an energy program and its vast natural resources.

Dr. Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College followed up the discussion with

an analysis of the Libyan model. Colonel Muammar Qadhafi gave up pursuing a nuclear weapons program

in 2003 through a process of diplomatic negotiations.

The Qadhafi regime began pursuing nuclear weapons shortly after Colonel Qadhafi’s ascension to power in

1969. His nuclear ambition lacked focus, however, and the commitment of the regime to the nuclear weapons

program vacillated over the years.

From the outset, Qadhafi was not sure for what or against whom he would use nuclear weapons. Much of

the motivation for nuclear weapons came from a desire to be respected by the international community.

When Qadhafi came to power, Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world; it had no indigenous

capacity to develop nuclear weapons, and technology and infrastructure were weak. Thus, the Libyan regime

tried unsuccessfully to buy nuclear materials from other powers.

In 1973, the leadership in Libya made a decision to focus on developing the ability to make nuclear weapons

domestically. Two main factors contributed to this decision. First, Libya's regional ambitions were expanding, as they felt that Egypt had left a power vacuum that Libya could fill following Arab-Israeli war.

Secondly, Libya had begun accumulating profits from the nationalization of Libya’s oil industry, and so had

money to pursue the option.

Throughout the 1980s, the Qadhafi regime faced increased scrutiny and isolation due to some of its foreign

policy maneuvers, including the support of terrorist groups. This prompted a debate within the regime: Libya

could either reform the country domestically to build popular support through internal reforms, or to work

1 Rappoteur Notes
at gaining strength, if not respect, through external means. From 1986-95, Libya's isolation continued, due

in part to the state's involvement in the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin and the 1988

bombing of PanAm Flight 103 (the Lockerbie incident). The general consensus was that Libya should

enhance the security of the state by developing a nuclear deterrent. However, not much progress was made

on the nuclear front, as Libya found it difficult to procure supplies.

From 1995-2003, Libya's desire to build nuclear weapons as a means for self-preservation intensified. A

blessing to the Libyan regime came in the form of an offer from A.Q. Khan from Pakistan for nuclear

technology. At the same time, Qadhafi also attempted to enact major socio-economic reforms at home to

mitigate for biting international sanctions. It was a two-track policy: weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

would act as insurance while the state attempted to solidify its international standing.

In late 2003, Libya abandoned all nuclear programs. Some commentators have suggested that the U.S.

invasion of Iraq was the reason for this decision, presumably because Qadhafi would want to avoid a

similar invasion. While the Iraq invasion may have affected the timing, Braut-Hegghammer argued that

evidence shows that this decision was not sudden. She noted that coercive diplomacy was instrumental in

convincing Libya to abandon its nuclear program, and that this strategy may also be useful in dealing with

future nuclear states. Proponents felt giving up nuclear weapons would make the country more secure in light

of its relationships with world powers. The nuclear weapons program served Qadhafi’s purposes by

bringing states to the table for negotiations with Libya, and in the negotiation process, many of Libya's

security concerns were addressed, eliminating much of the justification for the nuclear weapons. Furthermore, buying technology from A.Q. Khan on the black market was expensive.

How close was Libya to being a nuclear power? Dr. Braut-Hegghammer believed Libya was several years

away from developing the capacity to create its own nuclear weapons. The program was never robust, as the

country lacked the scientists and engineers to develop a truly capable system, and had to purchase most of

its nuclear development materials from the black market. However, the program should not be considered

the "court jester" in the world of proliferation. Though the state was held back by a lack of technology,

know-how and manpower, several of these hurdles could have been overcome relatively quickly.

The lessons learned from Libya are not entirely clear. The Libyan example showed that despite a relatively

rudimentary basic infrastructure, countries can still go fairly far down the nuclear path through the black

market. The Libya example may well yield applicable lessons for negotiating disarmament as part of an

incremental approach to a broader normalization of relations. However, another lesson is that negotiated

nuclear rollbacks are unlikely to appeal to isolated regimes. At first, Qadhafi and his regime boasted about

the rollback decision, calling it a model to be followed. In the following months, however, his opinion soured

as he did not feel that Libya was treated with the respect it deserved considering the sacrifice it had made.

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya and subsequent deposition of Qadhafi only seem to strengthen this

reasoning. Today, other powers including Iran and North Korea look to Libya as an example of what not to

do, believing that Libya succumbed to Western pressure in relinquishing its weapons and, unable to deter

foreign intervention, were repaid with forcible regime change.

Panel II: States Possessing a Nuclear Capability: Pakistan and North Korea

The second panel addressed Pakistan and North Korea, both of which possess a nuclear capability.

Dr. George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discussed Pakistan’s experience

developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan was influenced by a perception during the 1950’s that nuclear

proliferation was in vogue, and, like many other states, the beginnings of its program benefited from the

Atoms for Peace Program, which recognized the legitimacy of civilian nuclear programs. However, the real

motivation for developing nuclear weapons was India. The specific catalyst for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons

program arose out of that country’s major territorial losses in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, as India

supported the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Pakistan sought nuclear weapons to prevent

PILPG 2
any further loss of territory in future conflicts; it was a "never again" moment. An internal dimension also

influenced Pakistan: the civil-military balance of power. By being in control of the country's nuclear

arsenal, the civilian leaders hoped to "balance out" Pakistan's powerful army. In the end, this was a

miscalculation, as the Army ended up with control of the nuclear program.

For Pakistan, nuclear weapons are viewed as a deterrent against aggression from India, which is the largest

arms importer in the world. As long as India remains a threat, there is a perception that nuclear weapons will

be a compelling deterrent. Nuclear weapons are seen as a guarantor of national sovereignty and territorial

integrity, as Pakistan still considers its nuclear program as a deterrent against conventional aggression from

India. With the strength of India’s conventional military, Pakistan believes that nuclear weapons are necessary in order to deter the use of conventional force across a wide tactical, operational, and strategic spectrum.

Domestically, control over the nuclear weapons program gives status and international policy veto power for

the military: essentially, the government cannot do anything without the military's approval.

Dr. Perkovich pointed out that analyzing the situation in Pakistan is challenging, as traditional deterrence

models do not always to apply. There are two main, related, challenges:

First, the spectrum of conflict between India and Pakistan operates in a very different scenario from that of

the tensions which prevailed between the two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—

during the Cold War. The traditional model of escalation to nuclear war assumes that the conflict will start

out with conventional warfare between armies of relatively stable states, and escalate to a nuclear attack.

However, in Pakistan, it is more likely that the conflict would start out with a "subconventional" act of

aggression: an irregular or even clandestine attack that many would call a terrorist attack, such as the 2008

bombing of the hotel in Mumbai, India. Dr. Perkovich asked: 'What is the model going from

"subconventional" to "conventional" to nuclear?'

Similarly, the Pakistan case poses problems for the "unitary rational actor" model. Traditionally, state

governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence—they are the unitary actors that have

direct control over military actions, intelligence maneuvers, and, hypothetically, nuclear attacks. However,

in Pakistan, acts of aggression are often not linked explicitly to top leadership of the state, or at least, the state

can claim that they are not tied to the government. On the one hand, this gives Pakistan deniability; the

government can always say that there were no orders given to attack, and therefore they should not be

penalized. On the other hand, Pakistan risks international embarrassment if state involvement is later

discovered, as it was when ties were found between the 2008 Mumbai bombings and members of the

Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.

Regardless, this ladder of subconventional escalation and the lack of monopoly over the use of force

complicate calculations and destabilizes regional security. How does the other state—i.e., India—react to a

terrorist attack that may or may not be have been controlled by Pakistan? How do both sides negotiate and

signal to each other when there is no control over individuals within the country? Dr. Perkovich offered this

scenario: India considers the subconventional attacks coming from within Pakistan as acts of Pakistani

aggression, and builds up conventional rapid reaction forces to counter them. Pakistan sees the conventional

build-up as an act of Indian aggression, since the government of Pakistan asserts that it did not order the

terrorist attacks. Pakistan's response to conventional Indian aggression could then be nuclear. Ultimately,

Pakistan must gain control over the monopoly of force in order to stabilize the region. Otherwise, Pakistan

will never be seen as a reliable negotiating partner.

Mr. Joel S. Wit discussed North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, both its history and its future. He

cautioned that it is nearly impossible, due to North Korea's secrecy, to have a fine-tuned, clear cut analysis

of North Korea's program. Much remains unknown with regards to its program regarding type, number, and

purposes of the weapons. North Korea’s nuclear proliferation ambition dates back to the late 1950s, but its

motivations for nuclear power appear to have changed over time.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, it seemed that North Korea was bent on building nuclear weapons, and spent

billions of dollars on the program. North Korea was uniquely situated because it fought a war with the United

3 Rappoteur Notes
States, and the fear that the latter would use nuclear weapons during that war drove Pyongyang’s outlook

on nuclear weapons. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, North Korea concluded that it could not depend on the

Soviet Union to defend it against the United States. Finally, North Korea was doing well economically at

the time, and dreamed of reunifying the Korean Peninsula—an objective that could have been helped by the

possession of nuclear weapons. North Korea went considerably far down the nuclear path during this time

period: it had plutonium reactors, a radiochemical reprocessing facility, and by the 1980s, was conducting

tests that indicated to the United States that it planned to make a nuclear weapon.

From the late 1980s to 2002, however, North Korea seemed to de-emphasize the development of a nuclear

capability, suggesting a shift of motivations. First, North Korea was facing a very different geo-political

situation. China was making moves to befriend South Korea, the Cold War was over, and after the Soviet

Union disintegrated, North Korea pragmatically initiated better relations with the United States by agreeing

to a denuclearization program. In the early 1990s, the United States saw facilities that suggested that North

Korea could have had enough material to build up to 80-100 nuclear weapons by the early 2000s. However,

these facilities deteriorated to the point that by 2002, it was estimated that North Korea only had perhaps

enough fissile material for a handful of nuclear weapons, and the plutonium enrichment program was

essentially let go. This suggests that motivations in North Korea had changed, as the state allowed a multibillion dollar investment to deteriorate.

North Korea currently appears to have shifted back to believing that nuclear weapons are a central part of

its strategy. At present, there is an ongoing debate about whether North Korea will denuclearize. However,

Mr. Wit expressed that the more important questions concerned the size and magnitude of the program, and

how North Korea intends to use nuclear weapons. What model would North Korea compare to? China?

India? Pakistan? Would it be like France in the 1960s? Many suspect that North Korea will use nuclear

weapons as insurance to buttress its foreign policy initiatives.

A nuclear North Korea has stark implications for the United States and regional security and paints a

disturbing picture for non-proliferation. First, of course, is the threat of a direct attack from North Korea.

Secondly, North Korea could gain the technical knowledge and political courage to sell technology to other

countries without fear of reprisal. North Korea's insistence on developing nuclear weapons brings into

question the credibility of the American nuclear umbrella, and may even cause a breakdown of the regional

non-proliferation regime. North Korea could also use nuclear weapons as a guarantee to threaten and coerce

Seoul and exacerbate tension in the region. This environment may also cause the United States to rethink its

defense initiatives and its relationships with states like China.

Panel III: Potential Nuclear Powers: Iran and Saudi Arabia

For the third panel, Dr. Olli Heinonen and Dr. Norman Cigar discussed two countries that are potential

future nuclear powers: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Olli Heinonen of the Harvard Belfer Center focused on the challenge that Iran’s suspected nuclear

weapons program poses for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Article III of the NPT states that the

goal is to prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful to military uses. In Dr. Heinonen’s opinion,

it is too late to stop Iran from developing nuclear materials; action must be taken now to ensure that Iran does

not divert those materials to military uses.

Article II of the NPT seeks to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. The production and

development of nuclear materials are kept separate from the development of Iran's weapons systems,

regardless of whether those weapons are eventually destined to carry nuclear material. Article II of the NPT

only proscribes the development of nuclear weapons, not conventional ones, and so Iran can claim that it is

merely developing its conventional systems alongside nuclear energy. As the IAEA's mandate is only to

monitor nuclear materials, Iran can also claim that the IAEA does not have the right to monitor its weapons

systems.

PILPG 4
Iran is seeking raw materials to support a nuclear program both through the black market and from its own

natural resources. However, Dr. Heinonen noted with concern that Iran’s capabilities are becoming more and

more indigenous, meaning that they rely less and less on outside sources. Iran is taking over the entire fuel

cycle. Dr. Heinonen noted that the grey area between nuclear development for weapons and civil energy use

makes it difficult to control development, as the equipment and basic materials are the same for both tracks.

Dr. Heinonen concluded that Iran’s progress is slow due to design problems, manufacturing/quality problems,

a lack of materials, development in spread-out locations, and sabotage. Nevertheless, he warned that the

program is on the cusp of reaching a “break-out” capability, particularly as Iran's nuclear program is

becoming more and more indigenous. The first weapon could be manufactured by 2013 if the country was

able to overcome some of the technical challenges.

Dr. Norman Cigar of Marine Corps University judged that Saudi Arabia may be considering acquiring a

nuclear capability. He posited that the Saudi government is motivated by its perceived need to maintain

legitimacy by its defense of the country, as well as its role as a leader of the Gulf region and the Islamic

community from, in particular, a potential Iranian nuclear threat. He suggested that, in addition to its

deterrent function, Saudi Arabia views nuclear weapons development as a political leverage asset and a tool

for cultivating prestige. Saudi Arabia has been successful in mobilizing its religious establishment to

acquire legitimacy for any future acquisition of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is skeptical that Iran can be

stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia’s principal fear is that Iran would use nuclear weapons

as a deterrent screen against retaliation behind which it could promote instability among the Shia

communities in the Gulf and establish its regional hegemony. With the perceived threat of a nuclear Iranian

state, Saudi Arabia’s quest for nuclear weapons could be an acceptable sell to the international community.

However, Dr. Cigar noted that if Saudi Arabia would acquire weapons, it would most likely be through

purchase from an outside source, probably Pakistan.

Cost is not a consideration for Saudi Arabia, and it will invest considerable resources into protecting its

national interests. A nuclear Saudi Arabia would combine nuclear weapons with conventional arms so as not

to be dependent solely on a nuclear deterrent. Saudi Arabia is skeptical of any “nuclear umbrella” extended

by the United States. Saudi Arabia is currently developing its strategic rocket force and a space sector which

would also be key to the credibility of a deterrent threat. Ultimately, the deciding factor in Saudi Arabia’s

becoming a nuclear power is likely to be whether Iran develops a nuclear arsenal.

The Breakout Sessions

Working Group I: States That Have Relinquished or Declined to Pursue Nuclear Weapons

The key focus of the breakout panel was why states seek to acquire nuclear weapons and why states may

then cease to pursue the acquisition of nuclear arms. The group identified three motivating factors: security,

domestic politics, and prestige. The primary motivation for acquiring nuclear weapons, the group felt, was

security. In particular, many countries feel that having nuclear weapons will deter other countries from

attacking them. States that feel ignored and irrelevant seek to gain prestige on the world stage with nuclear

weapons. If they gain nuclear weapons, other states will start paying attention and will invite them to have

a seat at the table. In states with unstable dictators, sometimes the motivation is tied to the leader’s ego. Yet

another motivation for developing nuclear weapons is simply to challenge U.S. power, while some states seek

to equalize the power dynamics among the world’s nations.

The group disagreed on what deters states from pursuing nuclear programs. One group member offered that,

to persuade states from relinquishing their nuclear program, there has to be a sufficient incentive. The threat

of violence alone is insufficient. The same group member argued that until states feel that their options are

better without nuclear weapons than with them, they will not relinquish them. In response, another group

member said this was not an effective way to deal with nations that have violated their treaty agreements

because it is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. If the state has developed nuclear weapons in violation

5 Rappoteur Notes
of treaty agreements, there is no reason to give them incentives. Rather, the international community needs

to be forceful and put pressure on the state to comply.

The group also discussed the issue of latency—states that have the capability to develop nuclear weapons

but so far have not (or have relinquished their programs). The group discussed a number of states that have

the latent capability and/or motivation to develop nuclear weapons, concluding that there may be different

motivations for different states to not pursue a nuclear option.

Libya. One group member suggested that Libya obtained nuclear weapons simply because Qadhafi was a

madman and wanted the world to think he was powerful. Libya was discussed as a case where the decision

to relinquish nuclear power may have been purely technical.

Iraq. Another group member said that Iraq had the same motivation as Libya. Saddam Husayn was a

delusional leader and had no real strategy in gaining nuclear weapons. Iraq stopped its nuclear weapons

program primarily because the sanctions were impeding the process, and the top promoter of the program

was killed. But, another group member suggested that, if the sanctions had been lifted, Iraq would have

resumed its nuclear program.

Japan. Japan has not developed nuclear weapons because it has such a strong alliance with the United States

that it feels secure without such weapons. Japan is a prime example of a state that has sought shelter under

a larger U.S. security umbrella. In addition, Japan has the cultural view that nuclear weapons are immoral

because they remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, after the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011,

one group member said that Japanese citizens would not support a nuclear program because they know all

too well the damage of radiation and other concerns. However, Japan could move very quickly if it wanted

to develop nuclear weapons, as it has an astounding capacity in this field.

Taiwan. Taiwan “should” be thinking about nuclear weapons, but no one knows if it is.

Indonesia. Indonesia, too, seems to be off everyone’s radar, but it has two large nuclear centers.

South Korea. Because of the strong threats South Korea faces from North Korea, one would presume that

it has a strong incentive to develop nuclear weapons.

Brazil. Brazil had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s, but relinquished it

in 1990. The vice president of Brazil said something a while back to the press about how Brazil should

develop nuclear weapons, but that did not seem to be a real threat.

Saudi Arabia. If Iran goes nuclear, other states in the region are likely to want to pursue a nuclear program.

There is a potential that Saudi Arabia will be granted a “hall pass” in light of an Iranian breakout.

Working Group II: States That Have Developed a Nuclear Capability

This group agreed that there is not a set of static factors that lead states to pursue nuclear weapons programs.

Rather, no state’s experience is entirely predictive of another’s and priorities of states change over time.

Therefore, states must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. States pursue nuclear proliferation due to

concerns about money, nationalism, a desire to preserve territorial integrity, and an ambition to enhance

regime legitimacy.

In some circumstances, such as North Korea, the decision to engage in nonproliferation is in flux. In

Pakistan, however, the political and territorial cost of nonproliferation is perceived as too high. The “never

again” mentality seems to motivate states which have been invaded, like France and Pakistan, to pursue

nuclear weapons programs in the interest of national security. Nuclear weapons programs can be slowed

and rolled-back. Decisions to do so may be based on parity between rival states, external signals, the

strengthening of trade relations, and a lack of crises, but these processes should not be derivative, as each

PILPG 6
state has unique circumstances.

One goal of non-proliferation is to change the lexicon, change the paradigm, and inspire states to consider

new paths to security and international relations. States do not necessarily envision how nuclear weapons

are to be used when they start programs. Most group members agreed that it was unlikely that any existing

nuclear powers would actually use the weapons that they develop. This suggests that perhaps discouraging

proliferation is not the answer, but rather that permitting states to achieve parity will create a new, more

stable status quo.

The group discussed several different states, both possessing nuclear weapons and not:

Pakistan. Nuclear proliferation is a symptom of states that are unable to effectively resolve disputes. Many

states reason that once you have nuclear capability, you have a “trump card” that cannot be ignored. States

will continue to resort to acquiring nuclear weapons to deal with conflicts. This may be the case in the

relationship between India and Pakistan

Pakistan’s factors have changed over time. UN Security Council Resolution 1172 ordered India and Pakistan

to abandon further nuclear testing, but this was largely ignored. Nuclear weapons can act as a “trump card,”

or the “currency of the world.” Abandonment of the nuclear program also depends on parity. India is

emerging as a great power, and is largely unrestrained. The group also mentioned the importance of trade

relations and economic considerations for Pakistan. If its trade partners perceive Pakistan as a strong power,

then it may be more willing to discontinue its nuclear weapons program.

Pakistan will likely not give up its weapons unless the Indian threat vanishes. If India were not a factor, then

the cost of maintaining the nuclear program would probably lead to its end.

Iran. Nuclear weapons are attractive to Iran because they promote the regime’s goal of maintaining power

and enhancing its status. Nuclear weapons also help the domestic perception of the regime, and in some

ways, the process is cyclical because sanctions by the United States provide a scapegoat in domestic

politics as the source of Iran’s economic problems. Interest in nuclear weapons in Iran has transcended

regimes and nuclear proliferation has been a consistent priority.

Some experts argued that the United States’ actions in Libya undermined the global nonproliferation

strategy. It sent a message that Libya’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons program had made it more

vulnerable to international intervention later. Some noted that this perception is consistent with the

experience of Iraq. Because of these precedents, experts suggested that there is no sufficient incentive that

the international community could offer Iran to convince it to abandon its interest in nuclear weapons. The

current narrative works too well for the regime.

North Korea. North Korea always claims that its dependence on trade gives it no incentive to proliferate;

yet it still pursues nuclear weapons. In North Korea, issues of prestige seem to trump countervailing

pragmatic concerns, such as economic incentives.

Group members agreed that North Korea is less of a proliferation concern than Pakistan because North

Korea has a much smaller weapons capacity. With the right policies, the international community could

prevent North Korea from proliferating nuclear weapons. The wrong policies, however, will encourage it.

Nonproliferation approaches to North Korea are a matter of trial-and-error since the international

community does not really know what the state leadership is thinking.

The international community cannot predict how Kim Jong-eun will manage the Korean bureaucracy. Some

group members were of the opinion that nuclear weapons are like another child in the Kim family, which

they will never give up. However, North Korea must have had a reason for abandoning its nuclear weapons

program previously. It is very challenging for observers to determine what that reason was. Unless North

Korea sends clear signals, the United States will not be able to interpret them.

One participant asked, “What is the signal behind North Korea’s revealing its uranium enrichment program

7 Rappoteur Notes
last fall?” The group responded that it may either be that North Korea is seeking to attract attention and

incite discourse, or it may be a genuine attempt to notify the international community that North Korea is

actually developing nuclear weapons. Most experts felt that North Korea would be willing to agree to nonproliferation, but for a price. Some experts were concerned with how to engage North Korea without

marginalizing South Korea. Some pointed out that the United States has been successful at getting North

Korea to be more reasonable towards South Korea, though not recently, due to the emphasis on sanctions.

Either way, South Korea is unlikely to be marginalized because it is too prevalent in the region. Also, the

current South Korean government is conservative, but the new president will likely be more liberal. This

suggests that South Korea may be more inclined to consider engagement policies.

The group concurred that those who discount any hope of nonproliferation in North Korea either do not

understand North Korean politics or do not know the history of the state. To discount the possibility is to

“throw the baby out with the bath water.” Just because North Korea may not agree to complete disarmament

does not mean that the international community will be unable to convince North Korea to “dial back.”

Working Group III: States That Are Pursuing or May Pursue Nuclear Weapons

This breakout group agreed on very few issues. However, the participants concurred that nuclear weapons

provide a high level of deterrence to prevent threats to a country’s sovereignty from outside forces. The

threat of the use of nuclear weapons, however, must be real and credible to strike a sense of fear into

would-be interveners. Conversely, some participants expressed the view that simply possessing the latent

capability to produce nuclear weapons may act as a deterrent. The group agreed that in states with weak

conventional military forces (such as Iran), the threat of nuclear weapons use may become real if those states

feel cornered.

Although some nuclear-capable states look forward to a world free of WMDs, states will be unwilling to

disarm unless all others do so as well. The need for nuclear energy, however, may create an inability to

completely revert back to a world without a nuclear infrastructure and, thus, a potential precursor of nuclear

weapons. Most participants agreed that the possession of nuclear weapons may be for political, not military,

purposes.

The group also discussed alternative solutions to the current obligations set forth by the NPT and the

implications for the maintenance of a P-5 (permanent five members of the UN Security Council) world

order. First, the notion of a “limited proliferation” approach in which the slow proliferation of nuclear

capabilities could lead to greater international stability (as proposed by Kenneth Waltz in his 1981 paper,

“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better”) was discussed. Few agreed that this would

ultimately create greater stability but, rather, that it could cause chaos, particularly in areas such as the

Middle East.

Others argued that the NPT may be an antiquated solution to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

Because the NPT became effective on March 5, 1970 at the height of the Cold War, some argued that its

provisions are designed around a bipolar world order that does not exist today. However, some believed that

the NPT, although not perfect, coupled with the advisory function of the IAEA were and are instrumental in

managing and reducing the numbers of states with nuclear weapons. Participants concluded that, in general,

global arms agreements are severely difficult to create, as evidenced by the difficulties presented during the

creation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

The group also concluded that although the NPT system may be flawed, it has been relatively successful,

with very few new nuclear powers emerging since its original drafting. Any new system may produce

unknown results and would almost certainly disrupt the current P-5 world order.

Libya. The group generally agreed that if a state is not part of the nuclear club, it may potentially lose some

of its sovereignty. This trend is visible from an analysis of the Libya model. In 2003, Qadhafi voluntarily

PILPG 8
discontinued Libya’s nuclear program, and less than ten years later, NATO forces intervened and assisted in

ousting his regime. This may not have occurred if Libya had nuclear weapons. Other states learned a clear

lesson from these events: a nuclear capability is the “only” guarantor of sovereignty.

Pakistan. With regard to the situation in Pakistan, the breakout session group agreed that the United States

tolerates a high level of assertiveness from Pakistan, such as its support of anti-U.S./NATO insurgent groups,

to include direct attacks on U.S. assets via the Haqqani network and others. Despite a lack of trust, the United

States pours millions of dollars into Pakistan and treats it as a non-NATO ally in the Afghanistan war.

Participants argued that this level of acquiescence to Pakistani aggressiveness may be due to Pakistan’s

nuclear capability (though the argument has also been made that the United States simply cannot afford to

lose Pakistan's cooperation in the war in Afghanistan). The group also noted that a potential war between

India and Pakistan could result in the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

North Korea. Similar parallels can be drawn between the United States and North Korea. Many would argue

that North Korea’s nuclear capability has allowed it to stage direct attacks against U.S. assets in and around

the Korean Peninsula (as well as against its U.S.-allied neighbor South Korea). In this regard, U.S. policy

towards North Korea has included many carrots, but few sticks.

There are plenty of reasons for the United States’ complicated relationship with Pakistan and North Korea,

but the group agreed that possessing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal brings foreign cooperation and

deters intervention.

Saudi Arabia. The group also included in their analysis a number of states in the Middle East. Of

particular importance to the discussion were Saudi Arabia and Iran, their interstate relations, their nuclear

capabilities (or lack thereof), and perceptions of their roles in the region. The group established that while

Israel continues to be the perceived enemy throughout the region, Saudi Arabia sees Israel more as an

irritant and Iran as the most imminent threat. Also, due to NATO’s recent intervention in Libya, Saudi

Arabia views the United States with less trust as an ally. Because Saudi Arabia believes that it is unable to

fully rely on the protection of the United States’ “nuclear umbrella,” its desire to obtain nuclear weapons has

increased. If the Iranian nuclear threat is eliminated, however, Saudi Arabia may decide that nuclear weapons

are not necessary.

Although Saudi Arabia does not have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, there is a possibility of

acquiring one from another state. Pakistan seems to be the most likely source for a weapons transfer, but some

in the breakout group argued that transportation of the materials would be difficult, particularly because

Pakistan is heavily sanctioned. Additionally, some in the group noted that the transfer of one bomb would

only make a small impact on interstate relations, although others highlighted the psychological and

political impact even a very limited arsenal could have. Today, nuclear deterrence is much more effective if

a state possesses multiple weapons and/or the technology to create a weapon on its own.

Iran. At the time of this meeting, experts believed that Iran is one year away from possessing its own homemade operational nuclear weapon, if it chose to do so. While the latest European Union oil sanctions on Iran

have increased discomfort and threaten the Iranian economy, the decision to pursue nuclear weapons is not

related to economics. For Iran, the issue is one of regional hegemony and having a seat at the international

table as a respected player. Economic strife helps to foster popular regime change, but Iran may continue to

pursue nuclear weapons under any administration. Moreover, although the Iranian regime has fallen under

heavy pressure by the international community through the use of stringent sanctions, India, China, and

Russia continue to provide support to Iran through military assistance and the purchase of Iranian oil, and

this support has allowed Iran to continue to strive for nuclear capability. Although none of these states wishes

to see a nuclear Iran, their support of Iran allows the latter to gain some political advantage over the United

States, Europe, and Israel in the region.

Iran’s aspirations to become a nuclear power stem from a number of different desires and threats. First, Iran

fears that the fall of the Asad regime could potentially eliminate Iranian influence in Syria and its leverage

over the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon. Thus, regime change in Syria could result in Iran’s losing one

9 Rappoteur Notes
of its few remaining allies. In this scenario, the group agreed that Iran would have a greater incentive to go

nuclear. Foreign intervention in Syria could ultimately reinforce the lesson learned from Libya that the lack

of nuclear technology equates to a lack of sovereignty.

Second, Iranians view a nuclear program as a means to increase its influence. Strong Persian pride is on the

line to restore Iran’s classical role as a regional power. The Iranians are looking to “export their revolution”

to neighboring states, and nuclear weapons may be a key to doing so, by providing a deterrent against

retaliation. Such considerations make it difficult to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, especially when

combined with the growing sentiment that nuclear weapons are the only way to protect sovereignty.

Third, in much the same way that Saudi Arabia views Israel and Iran, Iran considers Israel to be a

distraction and Saudi Arabia as the real target. Nuclear weapons are essentially political weapons, but in

order to be effective there must be a sufficient level of credibility in a country’s willingness to actually use

such weapons. Politically, there is no strategic end game in targeting Israel, as Israel has an overwhelming

nuclear capability in comparison to that of Iran. Rather, Israel is more of an easy ideological straw man for

Iran to justify its nuclear program. Saudi Arabia, however, is the real political target for Iran. Saudi Arabia

has threatened to increase its output during the European Union embargo on Iranian oil, thus replacing Iran

as an exporter. With nuclear weapons, Saudi oil fields and desalinization plants become vulnerable political

targets. Presumably, Saudi Arabia would have to think more carefully about crossing a nuclear-capable Iran.

Fourth, as noted earlier, a state such as Iran, with a weak conventional military capability, the possession of

nuclear weapons could create a dangerous situation. Iran has proven to be quite erratic and reckless recently,

such as with the November 2011 attack on the British embassy in Tehran, and might be encouraged to

behave even more rashly if it believed its nuclear weapons made it immune to retaliation.

Fifth, strident rhetoric with no immediate teeth from the United States and others has forced Iran to choose

between continuing its nuclear development efforts or looking weak and submissive internally, regionally,

and internationally. Iran has already shown defiance in the face of initial calls to cancel the nuclear

program, and the Iranian leadership may be too far down the road to shut down the nuclear program now.

The West has demonized Iran, and Iran has demonized the West. Iran may only stop its nuclear program if

there is a credible threat of force or in a scenario that allows it to save face.

Iran perceived the United States to be a more credible military threat at the beginning of the Iraq War.

However, once the military effort in Iraq showed signs of weakness, this leverage dissipated. It has been U.S.

policy since then to avoid taking decisive action on the issue of the Iranian nuclear program, and U.S.

policymakers have argued that they will take action against Iran if and when Iran begins making a weapon.

However, it was the group’s opinion that the United States is hoping that regime change will slow Iranian

nuclear progress or stop it in its tracks.

The credibility of the threat posed by Israel has also been decreasing as a large amount of time has passed

since its last air strikes in the region. Since the United States’ weakened presence in Iraq, Iran has managed

to plan and use force with few repercussion from the international community, aside from economic

sanctions.

The breakout group suggested that positioning U.S. Air Force assets in an assertive posture around Iran

might provide a credible deterrence, provided that the United States displays a credible willingness to bomb

specific targets. Although Iranian nuclear sites are dispersed throughout the country and are positioned

underground, even a limited strike could set progress back considerably.

However, if the United States is unable or unwilling to intervene, Israel may choose to do so unilaterally as

it cannot tolerate a “weapon-ready” Iran. Possessing nuclear weapons will be a bigger burden on Iran than

on anyone else. There have been a few examples of Iranian military leaders making significant decisions

outside the chain of command, and many felt that there is not enough internal cohesiveness for Iran to

manage nuclear weapons securely. This lack of command and control could very well be an internal

deterrent, and a major reason why Iran has not gone nuclear already.

PILPG 10
A “soft” solution to the Iran nuclear issue could include highlighting the internal risks, and convincing Iran

that it cannot trust its own military (to take a lesson from Pakistan). However, this message would need to

come from states such as China or Russia, as it may go unheeded if delivered from the United States,

Europe, or Israel.

----------

11 Rappoteur Notes
Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya

by Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College

Introduction

“Now the security of Libya does not come from the nuclear bomb, quite the contrary, the

nuclear bomb represents a danger to the country ... [...] While in the past no one would

have objected to Libya being attacked, today the whole world will defend Libya.”1

“... [Qadhafi] was encouraged by the West and handed over the facilities like a child, who

is glad to be given a chocolate. Well, the nation [Libya] sees all of this and the heart of the

nation bleeds because of that. We can see this factor in all the countries, where people have

staged rebellions.”2

In late 2003, Libyan officials announced their decision to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, after

seeking to acquire such weapons for nearly three decades. This decision has been described as “one of the

most spectacular cases of successful, peaceful de-proliferation in history.”3 The 2011 Libyan popular uprising

may make it possible to learn more about the causes of Libya’s nuclear rollback; it may also necessitate

revising our understanding of the lessons that other states will draw from this example.

From the outset, the debate on Libya’s decision to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons was polarized. On

the one hand, scholars argued that the Libyan regime had been persuaded to abandon its pursuit of nuclear

weapons in an expansive trilateral negotiation process with the United States and the United Kingdom. On

the other hand, others claimed that the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, was deterred from

acquiring nuclear weapons by the conflict between Iraq and the international community during 2002-2003.

Furthermore, states appeared to draw different policy implications from Libya’s nuclear rollback. While

Washington and London were keen to present Libya as a lesson for other proliferating states, demonstrating that states would stand to gain from abandoning their nuclear weapons programs, other capitals reached

the opposite conclusion. Finally, the status of the Libyan nuclear program has been described in conflicting

terms. Some have argued that the Libyan program was only a few years away from developing nuclear

weapons, while others have characterized this effort as a joke that was doomed to fail. Looking back, what

conclusions can now be drawn about the Libyan nuclear program and 2003 roll-back decision?

This paper examines Libya’s nuclear rollback and how this has been interpreted by other states following

the 2011 popular uprising. The long-term consequences and impact of the so-called Libyan model remain

to be determined. I offer a preliminary analysis of how close Libya had come to a nuclear weapons

capability by late 2003, and how their nuclear rollback may inform proliferation decisions elsewhere. I will

argue that Libya’s nuclear program, as well as the decision to discontinue the pursuit of nuclear weapons as

part of a negotiated settlement, is likely to remain an exceptional case. However, the Libya case offers

important lessons for understanding how illicit nuclear suppliers can affect nuclear proliferation risks, and

how a state can be persuaded to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons as part of a broader normalization

process. Furthermore, the Libyan case could be seen as a cautionary tale demonstrating the importance of

rewarding nuclear rollback decisions to enhance the appeal of this option for other states.

Braut-Hegghammer 12
Qadhafi’s Nuclear Ambition: 1969-2003

When Libya discontinued its nuclear weapons program, the international community was surprised at the

scope of the technical infrastructure that was subsequently uncovered. While other states had long suspected

that the Libyan regime had pursued nuclear weapons, it was widely assumed that Libya lacked the skills and

infrastructure to mount an operational program.

In the years following Libya’s nuclear rollback, assessments of the threat posed by the Libyan program have

varied considerably. After the Libyan decision was announced, U.S. officials stated that the Libyan program

was “much further advanced” than expected and included “all necessary components in making a nuclear

bomb.”4 Similarly, another administration official characterized the Libyan program as “robust” and

“enormous.”5 Only two years later, the U.S. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States

Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction described Libya as “an inept bungler, the court jester among the

band of nationalists seeking ... nuclear capabilities.”6

What explains such widely divergent interpretations? In the following subsections, I will briefly examine

the emergence of Libya’s nuclear program between 1969 and 2003. I will show that the Libyan nuclear

program was rapidly approaching the operational stage, but that the regime’s ambivalent support for these

efforts rendered the program a hedging strategy rather than a primary objective. While the Libyan regime

may never have been entirely persuaded that nuclear weapons were necessary solutions to key strategic

challenges, the Libyan case demonstrates that changing nuclear supply dynamics can rapidly intensify

nuclear threats.

Qadhafi’s Nuclear Ambitions

Almost immediately after seizing power in September 1969, the incumbent regime began to explore

options for acquiring nuclear weapons. First, Muammar Qadhafi sought to purchase nuclear weapons from

other states. In 1970, Qadhafi’s second-in-command, Abdessalam Jalloud, approached China seeking to buy

nuclear weapons. Similar approaches were reportedly made toward India.

7 At the same time, Qadhafi

approached a number of states (including Egypt) about potential collaboration with a view to develop

nuclear weapons. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union became Libya’s most important supplier state,

providing a 10 megawatt research reactor under International Atomic Energy Aency (IAEA safeguards).

8

Nonetheless, Libya continued to court other states for nuclear technology and know-how. One such

relationship was Libya’s financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program during the mid-to-late 1970s.

During this period, Libya only appears to have received limited support from the Pakistanis, such as

training of Libyan staff. The oversight committee at Tajoura—the center of Libya’s nuclear program—

reportedly met every week, and Qadhafi promised to provide whatever resources were deemed necessary

to facilitate this effort.

9 However, his ambivalent attitude to the pursuit of such weapons—evident in his

political statements on this issue—was reflected in the seemingly half-hearted nuclear program that emerged

during the 1970s.

Curiously, despite Libya’s pursuit of expensive nuclear technology and its hiring of foreign experts from

states such as Egypt, the Libyan regime did not invest in developing a robust domestic knowledgebase to

support its nuclear program. From the outset, then, the Libyan program relied on external assistance for

manpower and technology. According to Egyptian experts working in Libya’s nuclear research establishment

at Tajoura during the 1970s, the Libyan regime had to be persuaded to send students abroad (notably to the

United States and the United Kingdom) to study nuclear science and technology.

10 These students returned

to form a small, but highly capable, group with a clear understanding of what a nuclear weapons project

would require. However, such a small group would not suffice to run an operational nuclear weapons

program.

During the 1980s, Libyan officials continued to explore different routes to the bomb. Little is still known

about the domestic calculations informing Libya’s priorities and decisions during this period. What is known

13 Case Study of Libya
is primarily based on information declared by Libyan officials to the IAEA and information from Libya’s

suppliers. This information suggests that the pace and orientation of the Libyan effort was largely

determined by what Libya could obtain from the nuclear marketplace, and the extent to which these offers

were suited for a country with such a limited domestic technical foundation. In 1980, the nascent Libyan

nuclear establishment began to experiment with uranium enrichment using centrifuge technology.

11 The

Libyans reprocessed and separated a small amount of plutonium during this initial exploration, but

ultimately opted to pursue uranium enrichment. Between 1983 and 1989, Libya conducted further uranium

enrichment experiments and unsuccessfully tried to acquire a conversion facility.

12

A combination of controversial foreign policies and tightening regulation of the global nuclear market made

it increasingly difficult for the Libyans to obtain the building blocks for a nuclear weapons program from

foreign suppliers. As a result, the project was, in the words of Libyan officials, “dwindling” during the

1980s. In 1984, Pakistan’s nuclear mastermind A.Q. Khan contacted the Libyans offering enrichment

technology. His offer was turned down as the Libyans decided they were not yet able to utilize what he

offered. Around the same time, Libya recruited a European expert to develop a gas centrifuge in Libya. This

individual left Libya in 1991 or 1992, allegedly having failed to mount a single operational centrifuge.

13 As

other states noted Libya’s fairly indiscrete attempts to acquire sensitive technologies, U.S.-led efforts to

deny Libya sensitive technology intensified.

14

Nuclear Hedging

In the mid-1990s, the Libyan regime made a strategic decision to reinvigorate its efforts to develop a nuclear

weapons option. At the same time, the regime was increasingly torn about the direction of its foreign and

security policies and whether the nuclear weapons project enhanced or detracted from its prospects of

long-term domestic political survival.

15

On the one hand, Libya had found a willing and able supplier of sensitive nuclear technology in Pakistan.

By 1989, the A.Q. Khan network once again approached the Libyans. In early 1991, the two parties agreed

that Khan would supply Libya with a centrifuge plant.

16 The following year, the United Nations imposed

sanctions on Libya after Tripoli refused to extradite two Libyan suspects for trial on the 1988 Pan Am

bombing. These sanctions, which included a total ban on air travel and arms sales to Libya, prevented the

Khan network from delivering the initial order.

17 In 1995, the Qadhafi regime decided to intensify its efforts

to acquire a uranium enrichment capability. Two years later, Matuq Muhammad Matuq, who was then in

charge of the Libyan nuclear weapons project, and his colleague Karim, who was in charge of the gas

centrifuge program, commissioned a gas centrifuge plant from the A.Q. Khan network.

18 The Libyan order

was essentially for a turn-key enrichment facility that would produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for

several nuclear weapons annually. The Libyans ordered 10,000 centrifuges and the associated equipment,

for a price between $100 to $200 million.

19 The order far outstripped any other deals made by the A.Q. Khan

network, and remains one of the largest transfers of sensitive nuclear technology.

While the Libyan program had found a willing supplier in the A.Q. Khan network, the nuclear program did

not progress in an even manner. During this period, increasingly influential reformist elements in the

Qadhafi regime argued that it was necessary to fundamentally transform Libya’s relations with the West to

secure the regime’s long-term prospects of survival. Towering economic problems had plagued the Libyan

population since the mid-1980s. These problems, combined with the excesses of the regime’s revolutionary

movement both domestically and abroad, had led to widespread dissatisfaction in the population. In the

early 1990s, this was reflected in several challenges to the regime, including military coup attempts, an

Islamist uprising in the east, and an assassination attempt targeting Qadhafi. These developments strengthened the position of the so-called revisionist elements that favored economic liberalization and were

skeptical of the role nuclear weapons could play in solving Libya’s strategic challenges. Libya reached out

to the United States on several occasions during the 1990s, as early as 1992 signaling its willingness to

negotiate on a range of issues including the sensitive weapons programs. Both in 1992 and 1999, however,

the United States refused to negotiate in other areas until the Lockerbie issue had been resolved.

20

Braut-Hegghammer 14
As Libya sought to improve its international standing while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons as a

hedging strategy, its grand strategy appeared increasingly conflicted. For example, in 1997—the same year

that Libya ordered the large centrifuge plant from the A.Q. Khan network—Qadhafi signaled his willingness to strike a deal on the Lockerbie issue with Britain and the United States.

21 In 1998, the Qadhafi regime

started negotiations with the two countries, leading to a trial of the two Libyan suspects in The Hague. These

negotiations established contact among the three governments and laid the foundation for a trilateral dialogue

addressing a range of issues obstructing the normalization of diplomatic relations.

In the framework of these negotiations, Tripoli saw an opportunity to come in from the cold. Since the 1980s,

diplomatic ties between Libya and the United States had been severed. During the Reagan administration,

the United States attacked Libya in retribution for Libyan intelligence’s alleged involvement in the 1986

bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin and defined Libyan regime change as a policy objective. A

nuclear weapons capability would not only elevate the regime’s international standing, regionally and in

relation to Western powers, it could also effectively deter other states from attacking Libya. Toward the late

1990s, however, the United States sent increasingly strong signals that it would revise its longstanding

position on Libyan regime change. This would alleviate a key concern of the Qadhafi regime, as it was clear

that the Libyan military was unable to defend or protect the capital against American air strikes. These

developments led many in the Qadhafi regime to favor continued efforts to improve relations with the United

States. However, hardliners in the regime—the so-called revolutionaries—and military leaders were

skeptical. They feared that compromises with the West, particularly with regards to the nuclear weapons

program, would make the regime more vulnerable in the long term.

The incompatibility of these two policies—pursuing nuclear weapons while simultaneously attempting to

get closer to the Western powers—became evident to Qadhafi following the 11 September 2001 terrorist

attacks. As the international community made its case against Iraq, and war was becoming an increasingly

likely prospect, it became clear to the Libyan regime that it would be necessary to either abandon the nuclear weapons project or prepare to rapidly develop a nuclear weapons capability. According to Saif al-Islam

Qadhafi, the son of the former Libyan leader, Qadhafi feared that abandoning the nuclear weapons project

would make the Libyan regime vulnerable to Western efforts to achieve regime change. Saif al-Islam, along

with elements in the regime who favored improving Libya’s international standing, argued that abandoning

the nuclear weapons program would make the regime safer than it had ever been.

22

In March 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, the Libyan negotiation team once again raised the issue

of the WMD programs to their U.S. and British counterparts. Within six months, the three parties had agreed

on a process for verifiably dismantling Libya’s unconventional weapons programs.

23 Musa Kusa, the former

intelligence chief in the Qadhafi regime, approached British officials when Qadhafi made his rollback

decision in late 2003.

24 In return for this move, the Qadhafi regime would obtain acceptance and a

working relationship with the United States. Crucially, unilateral and multilateral sanctions would be lifted.

This would enable the regime to benefit from oil sales and improve the dismal state of the economy.

The Libyan Nuclear Challenge

How far was Libya from the nuclear weapons threshold when Qadhafi made the decision to abandon the

pursuit of such weapons? Was the program simply a bargaining chip, or did it constitute an intensifying

threat? According to IAEA inspectors, in late 2003, Libya was about three to four years away from starting

the centrifuge enrichment plant.

25 During this time, Libya would also have to obtain the sorely lacking

manpower to operate this plant. The IAEA also verified Libya’s statement that, despite receiving drawings

and manuals for weapons design from A.Q. Khan in 2001 or 2002, it had not started weaponization work.

26

The Libyans also faced challenges in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle which would have to be addressed

to approach nuclear self-sufficiency. Libya’s nuclear advances were uneven. The country faced a number of

challenges and shortcomings—perhaps most acutely in terms of insufficient domestic expertise and lacking

industrial development—that would have to be overcome in order to be able to become able to produce

nuclear weapons indigenously. The A.Q. Khan network allegedly prepared to assist Libya in coping with

15 Case Study of Libya
these shortcomings, including work on nuclear weapons designs.

27 While these challenges could be

overcome—with the aid of the Khan network and perhaps North Korea—it would take time. Libya would

have required several years—and much greater investment and commitment on the part of the regime—to

reach nuclear latency.

The case of Libya demonstrates how a country with limited indigenous technical resources could nonetheless—with the help of others—acquire the ability to develop fissile material. This is often characterized as

the main bottleneck facing nuclear aspirants. The fact that Libya was able to assemble infrastructure on this

scale while largely evading the attention of the international community illustrates the severity of the

challenge posed by illicit nuclear transfers.

28

Revisiting Libya’s Nuclear Rollback

One of the key questions that surfaced in the wake of Libya’s nuclear rollback was whether the Libyan

regime would be more secure against domestic and external challenges. In interviews, Saif al-Islam

Qadhafi echoed his father’s public statements that the decision had made the regime safer.

29 Egyptian

oppositional voices argued in December 2003 that the only thing the Libyan people had secured from the

deal “is for the colonel to remain a crown of thorns on their heads.”30 Similarly, in January 2004, former

Jordanian official, Adnan Abu Odeh, argued that the Libyan people were not protected against anything

other than from American influence.

31

Another important question was whether the decision to abandon WMD programs reflected a deeper

transformation or reorientation of the Libyan regime’s policies and relations with the outside world. Recent

analyses have linked Libya’s rollback decision to a broader reorientation of Libya’s foreign and economic

policies.

32 While Libya had come in from the cold, it was unlikely that the Qadhafi regime would transform

itself with regards to issues such as human rights, democratization, and economic reforms.

33 The Libyan

officials who had defined the pragmatic Realpolitik that characterized Libyan foreign policy during the

Lockerbie negotiations and the nuclear rollback deal lost their influence within the regime. In the spring of

2006, the reformist Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem was replaced by hawkish Baghdadi Ali Mahmudi. While

there were many signs suggesting that even Qadhafi no longer believed that he could continue to govern

Libya according to the idiosyncratic ideology he developed in the late 1970s, the regime would not —and

perhaps could not—transform itself.

In the months following the rollback decision, Libyan and American officials presented a “Libyan model”

that other states were encouraged to emulate: through negotiations, a state could be persuaded to abandon

the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

34 Qadhafi described his motives for agreeing to this as a result of a changing global environment and that pursuing nuclear weapons would have been increasingly “dangerous.”35

The Libyan media characterized the decision as “an example that is both an inducement and a method for

working for world peace.”36 Other Libyan commentators denied that Libya was acting out of fear, claiming

that fear of US military force would have led Libya to retain its WMD programs, following North Korea’s

example.

37

Libyan Perspectives

Within a year, however, a different message was coming from Tripoli. Senior officials started to express

disappointment with the way in which the international community—especially the United States and the

United Kingdom—responded to the regime’s decision. In December 2004, Qadhafi made the following

statement:

Actually we were somewhat disappointed by the response from Europe, the United States,

and Japan. They did not really repay Libya for its contribution to international peace. And

Braut-Hegghammer 16
we are still waiting. If we are not repaid, other countries will not follow our example and

dismantle their programmes in turn. When we spoke with North Korea and Iran, which are

suspected of having nuclear programs, they said: “But what was the recompense in your

case? What did you obtain from the international community? So why do you want us to

dismantle our program?”38

The former Libyan leader cited a number of benefits that Libya could have obtained in return for its

decision. These included a security guarantee, civilian nuclear assistance, assurances that no country would

use nonconventional weapons against his country under any circumstances, and access to conventional

military equipment to bolster national defense.

39 In subsequent interviews, Qadhafi suggested that Libya

had been promised more by the United States and the United Kingdom than the regime had received.

40 Other

voices from the Libyan regime stressed that what Libya had acquired from the 2003 decision was an

opportunity to facilitate development. Foreign Minister Abd al-Rahman Shalqam stated in 2004 that

American weapons were not necessary and that Libya was not in a rush to acquire such weapons but was

focusing its efforts on economic development.

41

Following Libya’s reintegration into the international community, the regime was in a better position to

pursue other suppliers of such goods and services. Libya’s European neighbours—notably Italy and

France—were keen to strengthen mutual ties in terms of energy, trade, and security. In the nuclear arena, the

Libyan program appeared to dwindle following the rollback decision. After late 2003, Libyan officials

defended their investments in nuclear technology by referring to civilian applications of nuclear research that

would continue to benefit the population.

42 In 2007 and 2008, Libya and France agreed to develop a framework for civilian nuclear cooperation. While this agreement did not commit France to specific projects or

investments, it was a sorely needed symbolic victory for Tripoli.

As time passed, Libyan officials voiced mounting disappointment that Libya had not received a prominent

international position following the nuclear rollback. Furthermore, Qadhafi contrasted perceived slights—

such as the way Western states did not permit certain states to acquire nuclear weapons, while quietly accepting Israel’s nuclear arsenal—as further undermining the Libyan model. This led to increasingly vocal

statements and actions intended to signal the regime’s frustration to the international community. For

example, in late 2009, the Libyan regime left 5.2 kg enriched uranium in seven transport casks and refused

landing clearance to a Russian plane scheduled to collect this material. If this uranium was not moved within

three months, it could cause the release of radioactive nuclear material into the atmosphere. This incident

appears to have reflected Qadhafi’s irritation that he had not been permitted to pitch his tent outside the

United Nations headquarters in New York.

43 Similar frustration was expressed by the Libyan leader after the

United States did not invite Libya to the 2010 nuclear security summit. Qadhafi stated that it was a

“blunder” not to invite the country that had most recently abandoned nuclear weapons and that this would

make the Libyan example less attractive to states such as North Korea and Iran.

44

Regional Responses

Libya’s nuclear rollback was met with mixed responses in the Middle East. Initially, most commentators

attributed the Libyan decision to the Bush administration’s harsh policies and Saddam Hussein’s fate

following his capture in Iraq. Libya’s neighbours characterized the rollback decision as a victory for the

Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Arab observers cited a number of factors as having caused this decision,

“including Saddam Hussein’s capture, Iran’s signing of a protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

... and revelations about the interception in Italy of a shipment of illicit material heading for Libya.”45 Other

commentators noted the pragmatist logic informing Libya’s decision. The editor of Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a

leading pan-Arab newspaper, described the move as a “lesson in sane dealings with the political reality, the

likes of which have been absent from the Arab rationality for long decades.”46

Following the 2003 Libyan announcement, regional commentators pointed to the lack of pressure from

European countries and the United States on Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons arsenal. While Western

17 Case Study of Libya
analysts debated whether force or diplomacy had persuaded Qadhafi to abandon his pursuit of nuclear

weapons, and whether Iran or North Korea would follow suit, Middle Eastern commentators noted that the

political will of Western states to exert such pressure on Israel seemed non-existent.

47 In other words,

analysts noted the unique overlap of interests that had produced the 2003 rollback agreement and expressed

doubts that such an overlap was likely to emerge between the United States and other suspected proliferators.

Revisiting the Libyan Model

Following the 2011 popular uprising which led to Qadhafi’s overthrow, the contested Libyan model is once

more subject to reinterpretation. Several observers have noted that it would have been much more difficult

to provide the critically important support for the Libyan resistance movement if Qadhafi had been able to

develop nuclear weapons. The consensus, then, is that the Qadhafi regime’s decision to abandon its nuclear

weapons program ultimately contributed to its downfall. This has been taken to suggest that it is now less

likely that other states suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons option are keen to follow Libya’s example.

48

This would be an unfortunate outcome, as the Libyan model was a rare success story of coercive

diplomacy. It also demonstrated that former adversaries could come to agreement concerning difficult

conflicts and reduce tensions for the benefit of global peace and stability.

49

It is not yet possible to discern the long-term implications of the overthrow of the Qadhafi regime for the

appeal of negotiated nuclear disarmament along the lines of the so-called Libyan model. Meanwhile, even

prior to 2011, it was clear that the Libyan model did not trigger similar acts of negotiated nuclear rollback

elsewhere. In the years following Libya’s rollback decision, the international community struggled to cope

with the challenges posed by North Korea’s nuclear tests and Iran’s nuclear program. While the Libyan

regime lamented that it had not been better compensated by the West, the North Korean regime appeared to

be virtually unassailable. Although the stark contrast between the fate of these two regimes is likely to have

been duly noted by nuclear aspirants elsewhere, the implications for future proliferation challenges are not

necessarily straightforward.

Two important variables are likely to influence how states weigh the appeal of the Libyan model: how

advanced their nuclear capabilities are, and the intensity of their demand for nuclear weapons. It is

plausible that states with advanced nuclear capabilities are unlikely to be persuaded to abandon their

capabilities in return for normalization of their international standing. Many now argue that it is too late to

persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons capability, and a growing number of observers

assess that Iran’s nuclear program is entering a “zone of immunity” from foreign intervention. What has been

the response from these states to the events in Libya in 2011? One notable view, expressed by Iranian leader

Ayatollah Khamenei in March 2011, underlines the costs of compromising with regards to nuclear programs

in terms of domestic politics and regime stability.

50 While this rhetoric is open to challenge on several

grounds, it is a telling indication of the way in which leading Iranian figures characterize the consequences

of Libya’s negotiated nuclear rollback.

In a second example, on 22 March, North Korean media cited Foreign Ministry spokesmen characterizing

lessons from the Libyan popular uprising as follows: “Libya’s nuclear dismantlement much touted by the

U.S. in the past turned out to be a mode of aggression ... It proved once again the truth of history that peace

can be preserved only when one builds up one’s own strength.”51

Elsewhere, the Libyan case has been cited as an example of how nuclear rollback makes states vulnerable

to domestic and foreign enemies. In Pakistan, A.Q. Khan stated: “[d]on’t overlook the fact that no nuclearcapable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn. Had Iraq and

Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn’t have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently.”52 His

sentiments echoed those of Indian officials after the 1991 Gulf War, when an Indian general stated that no

country could challenge the United States unless it possessed nuclear weapons. Khan’s statement reflected

growing concerns in Pakistan about the vulnerability of its nuclear assets after American forces killed Osama

bin Laden in Abbottabad two weeks earlier. 53 Khan, of course, had his own axe to grind with the Libyan

Braut-Hegghammer 18
regime following the disclosure of the assistance provided by his network to the Libyan program.

Alternative Models?

Within a decade of Libya’s negotiated nuclear rollback, the Libyan model appears unlikely to appeal to

states with an advanced nuclear infrastructure and with a strong demand for a nuclear deterrent. Instead, the

strategy of another state—North Korea—which made rather different choices in the nuclear arena

following lengthy negotiations with the United States, may seem more appealing as a model for such states.

If the Libyan model is a case of a negotiated nuclear rollback, the North Korean “model” could be seen as

a strategy to agree to nuclear restraint, subject to the state in question considering the benefits of this arrangement to outweigh the costs. In the North Korean case, the regime agreed to nuclear restraint in return for

substantial assistance from the United States in the 1994 Agreed Framework. In contrast to the Libyan

decision to abandon all nuclear research and development, North Korea secretly expanded its enrichment

program. Once Pyongyang was no longer satisfied with the terms offered by the United States, the regime

withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 and carried out nuclear tests two years later.

Following the 2003 war in Iraq, North Korean officials reiterated the point that the possession of nuclear

weapons would have saved the Iraqi regime—a belief that has been bolstered following the 2011 Libyan

uprising.

54 In addition to serving as a deterrent against foreign intervention, nuclear weapons function as a

key lever in relation to the international community. The domestic survival of the Pyongyang regime rests

on the flow of aid from the outside world. Following the acquisition of nuclear weapons, North Korea has

received far more aid than countries of similar size and level of economic development.

55

The contrasts between Libya and North Korea suggest two possible lessons for prospective proliferators.

First, the North Korean “model” seems to underscore the value of maintaining a nuclear option while

engaging in negotiations concerning restraint or rollback. Retaining the option of rapidly resuming the

effort to develop or test nuclear explosives could be interpreted as an increasingly vital component of such

negotiations for isolated regimes. This conclusion is unlikely to be missed by the various factions in Tehran.

Second, the tendency to reach out to the United States offering nuclear restraint or rollback in return for a

grand bargain—as seen in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea in the 1990s—could decline in

the foreseeable future. States could turn to other emerging powers—notably China—in making decisions

about nuclear power versus nuclear weapons. Looking to the future, decisionmaking in latent nuclear

weapons states could be informed by more complex, and possibly conflicting, agendas.

Conclusion

Libya’s decision to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons is likely to remain a unique case of negotiated

nuclear rollback for two reasons: the unique characteristics of the Libyan program and the subsequent fate

of the Qadhafi regime. This appeared to be the case even before the Arab Spring, due to the Qadhafi regime’s

vocal dissatisfaction with the compensation received for abandoning the nuclear weapons program.

For states standing at the threshold of a nuclear weapons option, the Libyan model appears anachronistic.

Unilateral disarmament—abandoning nuclear latency—may seem irrational to regimes that fear foreign

pressure and domestic unrest. For the Iranian regime, for example, the North Korean strategy may seem far

more appealing. However, unlike North Korea, Iran lacks a patron to balance the pressure wielded by the

United States and Israel. While Russian and Chinese influence can to some degree compensate for

American and European efforts to impose strict economic sanctions, the absence of a countervailing patron

confines Iran’s options. While it seems highly unlikely that a state such as Iran will be tempted to adopt the

Libyan model following the 2011 uprising, states with a less advanced nuclear capability could emulate

aspects of the Libyan model if they intend to use this capability as a lever. We may be headed for a world

with a growing number of latent nuclear weapons states reluctant to surrender their nuclear weapons option.

This, ironically, could be the main lesson that states opt to draw from the Libyan case.

----------

19 Case Study of Libya
Notes:

1 “Libya: Gaddafi Addresses General People’s Congress,” Tripoli Great Jamahiriyah TV (in Arabic), 2 March 2004,

FBIS.

2 Ayatollah Khamenei, Mashhad Nowruz Address 2011. Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Khorasan

Provincial TV, Mashhad, 21 March 2011, in BBC Monitoring, 23 March 2011. Accessed from www.iranalmanac.com.

3 Harald Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” in Morten Bremer Mærli and Sverre

Lodgaard (Editors), Nuclear Proliferation and International Security, (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 73.

4 “Bush official: Libya’s nuclear program a surprise,” CNN, 19 December 2003, http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-

19/world/libya.nuclear_1_british-inspectors-nuclear-program-libya?_s=PM:WORLD.

5 Ibid.

6 The U.S. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,

report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005, quoted in Jacques E. C. Hymans, “Assessing North

Korean Nuclear Intentions and Capacities: A New Approach,” Journal of East Asian Studies, May-August 2008, Vol.

8, No. 2, p. 289.

7 Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East, (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2007) p. 213.

8 Ibid.

9 “Libya,”Interview with Muhammad Abd al-Aziz, Al-Majallah, 1-7 February 2004, p. 26—29, FBIS.

10 Ibid.

11 Solingen, Nuclear Logics, p. 217.

12 Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 79.

13 David Albright, Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America’s Enemies, (New York: Free Press,

2010), p. 116.

14 Dirk J. Vandewalle, Libya Since Independence: Oil and State-Building, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998)

p. 183.

15 See Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround: Perspectives from Tripoli,” The Middle East

Journal, Vol. 62, No. 1, Winter 2008, p. 55-72.

16 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 117.

17 Ibid., p. 119.

18 Ibid., p. 120.

19 Ibid., p. 122.

20 Martin Indyk, “Iraq did not force Gaddafi’s hand,” Washington Post, 9 March 2004; Müller, “The exceptional end

to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 77.

21 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 121.

22 See Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround,” p.71.

Braut-Hegghammer 20
23 Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 77.

24 Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring,” The Washington Times, 24 February 2011, p. 7.

25 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 149.

26 Ibid., p. 149.

27 Ibid, p. 151.

28 See also Chaim Braun and Christopher F. Chyba, “Proliferation rings: New challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime,” International Security, Fall 2004, Vol. 29, No. 2, p. 5-49.

29 See Braut-Hegghammer,“Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround,” p.71.

30 Yassir al-Zaatirah, Al-Dustour, 23 December 2003, cited in Peter Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise,” World Press

Review, Middle East/North Africa, Vol. 51, No. 3, March 2004, www.worldpress.org/mideast/1787.cfm#down.

31 Adnan Abu Odeh in Daily Star, 6 January 2004, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

32 Solingen, Nuclear Logics, 2007; Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround.”

33 Alison Pargeter, “Libya: Reforming the Impossible?” Review of African Political Economy, No. 108, 2006, p. 219—

235.

34 See, for example, “Libya: Al-Qadhafi addresses General People’s Congress,” Tripoli Great Jamahiriyah TV (in

Arabic), 2 March 2004, FBIS.

35 Mouammar Kadhafi, “Que fait l’armée française en Afrique ?” Le Figaro, 24 November 2004, access via

http://www.voltairenet.org/article15599.html; “Kadhafi’s son says world must give NKorea incentives to reach

nuclear deal,” Agence France Presse, 5 April 2005, Lexis-Nexis.

36 Abd al-Hafiz al-Adl, Al-Jamahiriya, Editorial, 22 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

37 Lead editorial in Azzahf al-Akhdar, 1 January 2004, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

38 “Libyan leader laments no ‘concrete’ reward for giving up WMD,” Rome RAI Tre Television Network (in Italian),

17 December 2004, FBIS.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid; “Israelis brace for Libya visit. Tripoli envoy here on secret mission, ‘Post’ learns,” The Jerusalem Post, 3

March 2005, Lexis-Nexis.

41 “Libya’s Shalqam Comments on Libyan-US Ties, Upcoming Talks with Powell,” Al-Jazeera, 23 September 2004.

42 Ibid.

43 “Libya’s nuclear scare Gaddafi risked ‘disaster’,” Sunday Herald Sun (Australia), 5 December 2010, p. 44, LexisNexis.

44 Matthew Lee, “Gadhafi: US nuclear snub of Libya hurts peace,” The Associated Press, 26 April 2010.

45 Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

46 Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, Al-Sharq al-Awsat, editorial, 22 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

47 Ibid; and lead editorial in Al-Quds al-Arabi, 23 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

21 Case Study of Libya
48 Norman Cigar, “Libya’s Nuclear Disarmament: Lessons and Implications for Nuclear Proliferation,” Middle East

Studies Monographs, No. 2, Marine Corps University, Quantico, January 2012.

49 For further details, see Bruce W. Jentleson and Christopher A. Whytock, “Who ‘Won’Libya? The Force-Diplomacy

Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3, Winter 2005, p. 47-86;

Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround.”

50 Ayatollah Khamenei, Mashhad Nowruz Address 2011, Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Khorasan Provincial

TV, Mashhad, 21 March 2011, BBC Monitoring, 23 March 2011, www.iranalmanac.com.

51 Jonathan Gurwitz, “Libya’s nuclear lesson,” San Antonio Express-News, 3 April 2011, p. 9B, Lexis-Nexis.

52 “Pakistan: Nuclear scientist says bomb saved Pakistan,” Right Vision News, 17 May 2011, Lexis-Nexis.

53 Ibid.

54 Andrei Lankov, “North Korea’s Choice: Collapse or Reform,” Foreign Affairs, 19 December 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136966/andrei-lankov/north-koreas-choice-collapse-or-reform?page=show.

55 Ibid.

Braut-Hegghammer 22
Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor”

Model for Managing Deterrence

by George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

States’ motivations for acquiring and retaining nuclear weapons change over time. The threats and

interests that lead states to seek nuclear weapons in the first place may subsequently morph. States may then

identify other threats and interests to retain the weapons. For example, the United States began the

Manhattan Project to meet the threat of an assumed Nazi nuclear-weapon program. Germany was defeated

in May 1945, but the U.S. continued the Manhattan Project and three months later dropped two atomic

weapons on Japan. After Japan surrendered, the U.S. cited the emerging threat of the Soviet Union to

justify continuing its build up of nuclear weapons. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. strategists

and officials have justified retention of a large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal to deter post-Soviet Russia,

China, “rogue states,” and, more vaguely, nuclear terrorism, and to hedge against unforeseen developments.

Pakistan has been relatively constant in defining the threats that require its possession of a growing nuclear

arsenal. Pakistan’s President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto initiated a crash program to produce nuclear weapons in

January 1972, one month after the country’s ignominious defeat in war with India, which resulted in the

eastern half of Pakistan becoming the new independent country of Bangladesh. Nuclear weapons would

ensure Pakistan that it “never again” would be humiliated and defeated by India. Its existence and territorial integrity could be guaranteed regardless of India’s disproportionate size and resource advantages.

1

Bhutto also saw the nuclear weapon program as a means by which he, as a civilian leader, could balance the

internal power of the Pakistan Army. The Army had ruled the country since 1958 and was clearly the

dominant center of power within it. But if Bhutto could preside over a successful nuclear weapon program

and retain authority over the weapons it produced, he could stand on a more equal footing with the Army.

Of course, things change. Bhutto was displaced in a military coup in 1977 and hanged in 1979. The Army

took over the state and the nuclear weapon program and has remained the dominant institution in the

country. In contrast with India, whose nuclear weapon program has been directed and closely managed by

successive prime ministers and a coterie of top civilian scientists, Pakistan’s nuclear program has been

military in its management, purpose, and ambition. Pakistan’s arsenal is dedicated to deterring India from

taking advantage of its greater power and resources to invade Pakistan or dictate its policy choices,

particularly regarding strategic objectives such as Kashmir and, more recently, Afghanistan. To the extent

that India could be tempted to mobilize its superior resources to produce and deploy conventional military

power that conceivably could defeat the Pakistani Army, Air Force and Navy in war, Pakistan’s military has

developed nuclear doctrines and capabilities to wield and use nuclear weapons against India’s conventional

forces, as well as to retain the capacity to hold India’s major population centers at risk. The Pakistani

military projects a multi-variant role for its nuclear deterrent, at the tactical, operational, and strategic

levels.

In addition to deterring India from threatening Pakistan’s territorial integrity and sovereign autonomy,

nuclear weapons also are a symbol of national prowess. Indeed, after the nuclear tests of 1998, it was not

uncommon to meet Pakistani military officers and high-ranking civilians who proclaimed that nuclear

weapons were the country’s one unmistakably great achievement. More speculatively, and ironically, given

Bhutto’s original intention to balance the Army’s power internally, the Army’s control over the nuclear

23 Pakistan’s Motivations
weapons program means that if civilians ever gain real predominance over the country’s governance and

distribution of resources, the Army will have the upper hand in negotiating the terms by which it would

hand over real control over the nuclear program and arsenal.

With that brief background, I now discuss two related challenges that Pakistan poses to deterrence stability

in South Asia, and to the broader model of deterrence that has predominated international thinking since the

1960s. These challenges are unprecedented and related, and therefore deserve dedicated analysis not only

in Pakistan and India, but also in the U.S. One is the spectrum of violence that occurs between India and

Pakistan and therefore affects their management of nuclear deterrence. The deterrence model that grew up

around the U.S.-Soviet contest concentrated on balancing nuclear doctrines and forces in ways that deterred

initiation of nuclear war, including “bolts from the blue,” and also the escalation of large-scale conventional

war into nuclear war. In South Asia today, by contrast, India and Pakistan must contend with the potential

of subconventional aggression (terrorism) to escalate to conventional war and then nuclear war. This broader

threat spectrum would be inherently more difficult to manage than the Cold War environment. The

difficulty is compounded further by a second challenge, the possibility that Pakistan is not the sort of

“unified rational actor” assumed by deterrence models.

Theories of nuclear deterrence rely on the assumption that nuclear competitors are “unitary rational actors.”

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and William H. Riker concisely express this assumption: “national decisions of

such magnitude as acquiring a nuclear capability or using such a capability in a war are made by a single,

dominant leader who is an expected utility maximizer.”2 Among other things, this assumption extrapolates

to the nuclear domain the key feature of a modern state as defined by Max Weber, that a state exercises a

monopoly on the legitimate use of force in and from its territory.

To the extent that analysts and policymakers have worried about instances when the unitary rational actor

model might not pertain, they have tended to focus on the problem of non-rationality. Terrorists are presumed

to be undeterrable because they do not conform to the dominant model of rationality. States led by

madmen, religious zealots, or neo-Hitlerites also are deemed to violate the model. More broadly, as

Lawrence Freedman has noted, the unitary rational actor model does not account for “a whole range of

psychological and sociological factors—such as mental quirks, lack of awareness, domestic political

pressures, value-conflicts or sheer errors of judgment.”3 Irrationality is a real problem and it may not be

limited to terrorists and militant states, as historical examples from the Cold War suggest. But, the first

adjective in the “unitary rational actor” model—unitariness—is also highly problematic and less often

considered.

When unity exists—defined as the top state leadership’s clear control over the instruments of violence

emanating from the state—deterrence can operate as it is supposed to. The highest authorities of the state

effectively maintain a monopoly on the instruments of violence and the transmission of signals internally

as well as to competitors. The problem is when unity does not exist in fact or in the perception of

competitors. Disunity produces dangerous confusion and ambiguity that interfere in the management of

deterrence. Who is sending signals through violence that is perceived to be emanating from the state and/or

its territory? What is being signaled? To whom does the victim of aggression address counter-signals and

actions? How does one calculate the interests of the attacker if the putative leaders of the state are not the

authors of the perpetrated violence, or are pretending not to be? If states and their leaders are presumed to

be rational and to highly value the preservation of their state, but disunity exists and other actors who may

not place a high value on preservation of the state are conducting aggression and may be able to gain

control over nuclear assets, how does one manage deterrence and escalation processes in such a situation?

In this latter scenario, disunity erodes the rationality on which deterrence is predicated.

The outcomes of confusion prompted by violence whose authorization is ambiguous could be either

stabilizing or destabilizing. If, for example, authorities in India believe that authority in Pakistan is

splintered, New Delhi may choose to refrain from counter-attack, which could reinforce stability and

escalation control. On the other hand, they could respond with force, risking unintended escalation.

However, because leaders of adversarial states must put any immediate conflict in the context of longer-term

Perkovich 24
relations, they must think how their action or inaction today could raise or lower the risk of inviting more

violence from the adversary in the future. Thus, forbearing counter-attack in one crisis can be seen to

weaken deterrence of future violence. With each additional crisis that is not met with a counter-attack, the

pressure mounts to act more forcefully the next time in order to restore deterrence.

Pakistan illustrates the unity problem. Early in its history, Pakistan’s military leadership saw the potential

value in mobilizing “irregular” forces to augment the regular Army in pursuing the state’s objectives vis-àvis India. These objectives most famously have included wresting the Kashmir Valley from Indian control,

and/or raising the costs of India’s ongoing occupation of the Valley and diverting Indian forces to the

occupation. War initiated by Pakistan in 1947 was said by Pakistani authorities to be carried out by

irregulars outside of state control. In 1971, the Pakistan Army mobilized proxy forces in East Pakistan to

combat the Bengali separatist insurgency, which was backed by India.

4 These proxies, who were mostly

Urdu-speaking Biharis and activists from the Jamaat-e-Islami party, massacred large numbers of Bengalis.

In the 1980s, Pakistan and the United States (with help from Saudi Arabia and others) famously mobilized

irregular “freedom fighters” to drive the Soviet Army from Afghanistan. After that successful mission, the

Pakistani military and intelligence services shifted these forces to Kashmir, exploiting the opening created

by India’s rigging of state elections there in 1989. Pakistan nurtured and abetted the growth of jihadi

organizations to carry on the struggle with India. Over time, these groups proliferated. There is room to

debate the degree to which Pakistani authorities controlled the growth and operations of these groups, but

through the present era these authorities have not stifled them decisively.

By instructive comparison, the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War used proxies in

violent struggles in the Third World but did not extend violence directly into each other’s homeland. There

are several reasons for this, but one of them was recognition of the danger that attacks in the Soviet or U.S.

homeland could escalate to nuclear war. To preserve nuclear deterrence and avoid nuclear war, the two

antagonists eschewed the projection of violence into each other’s territory. Noting this form of restraint does

not imply that the U.S. or the Soviet Union were acting from virtue; their proxy wars killed many more

people than would have been killed if they had held back. Rather, the point is that the projection of violent

actors by Pakistan into India or vice versa poses unprecedented risks of deterrence instability.

The unity problem posed by Pakistan has not eased since it and India made their nuclear deterrence

relationship overt when they tested nuclear weapons in 1998. In early May 1999, the Pakistani military,

directed by Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf, instigated infiltration by Army forces dressed as

civilians into high points of the Kargil region of Kashmir which were then under nominal Indian control.

After India belatedly learned of this infiltration, what became known as the Kargil conflict ensued. Pakistan

at first claimed that the insurgents were aggrieved local freedom fighters, not under Army control. As the

conflict gained steam and insurgents were killed, Indian forces discovered identity cards and other evidence

that demonstrated that the fighters were Pakistani servicemen. On 31 May, Pakistani Foreign Secretary

Shamshad Ahmed said that escalation could lead to use of “any weapon” in the Pakistani arsenal. The

Pakistani Senate declared that “the purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used

when they are needed.” The role of nuclear threats and deterrence in the conflict remains subject to

scholarly debate, and it is possible that the nuclear shadow inspired caution and helped prevent escalation

of the conflict. However, this benign effect would be difficult to sustain if similar forms of aggression were

repeated because India would be pressed to seek options to deter such repetition.

That conflict ended in weeks. India reported that 527 of its servicemen had been killed and 1,363 others

wounded. Pakistani sources differ on casualty figures, ranging from 423 killed to 3,000. Pakistan was compelled by international opinion and diplomatic pressure, spearheaded by the United States, to acknowledge

its fault and to accept an end to the conflict without gain. In the following years, Indian military leaders,

strategic analysts, and politicians concluded that Pakistan now dangerously believed that nuclear deterrence

could give it a shield behind which to conduct low-intensity—sub-conventional—war against India,

believing that India would not escalate in retaliation for fear of triggering nuclear war that would not be worth

the loss of small chunks of disputed territory in Kashmir. This is an example of the stability/instability

paradox conceptualized by Jack Snyder decades ago. Out of frustration, and to deter Pakistan from

25 Pakistan’s Motivations
waging aggression at any level on the threat spectrum, Indian security analysts and military officers

struggled to develop doctrine and capabilities to fight Pakistan at all levels of violence while dominating the

escalatory process. Of course, this is easier said than done.

Two years after the Kargil conflict, on 1 October 2001, terrorists linked to Pakistan attacked the Jammu and

Kashmir legislative assembly complex in Srinigar, killing 38 people. Two months later, on 13 December,

a handful of militants attacked the Indian parliament building in New Delhi. India asserted that the attackers were linked to Pakistan, in particular the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba organizations which

were known to recruit and train in Pakistan. Pakistani authorities denied any role in the attacks. There was

and is much evidence to indicate that these groups had grown up with the support of Pakistan’s InterService Intelligence (ISI), and even if Pakistani authorities disputed the ISI’s direct control over these groups,

it was clear that the authorities did not act decisively to demobilize them.

Following the two attacks, India mobilized massive forces toward the Indo-Pakistan border. This force

eventually totaled 800,000 troops, backed by naval deployments to potentially conduct a blockade of

Pakistan. A stand-off ensued for more than six months, with real concerns in the region and internationally

that major warfare could erupt. Eventually, with the assistance of concerted behind-the-scenes diplomacy

by the U.S. and others, India stood down.

By 2004, India and Pakistan had undertaken back-channel negotiations with each other to temper their

relationship and seek a framework for ending the Kashmir conflict. However, this promising diplomacy was

not brought to completion due to internal developments in both countries.

In November 2008, another major terrorist attack was conducted by agents of Laskhar-e-Taiba, this time

against the Taj Mahal hotel and other facilities in Mumbai. The attacks killed 164 people and wounded

more than 300. Perhaps mindful of the Kargil and 2001-02 crises, the two states, again pressed by the U.S.,

largely avoided repeating the cycle of recriminations and mobilization of large conventional forces that had

occurred before. Nevertheless, there was at least one “scare” when Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

received a phone call from a man claiming to be Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, warning that

India would launch a war on Pakistan the next day. Such a threat would naturally prompt the Pakistani

military to increase its readiness, if not to launch pre-emptive operations. As a recent report by the Henry

L. Stimson Center documents, American officials learned of the alleged call and ascertained that it was

fraudulent, that Mukherjee had not placed it. The U.S. was thus able to calm the situation.

The deterrence implications of subconventional aggression and ambiguous state control over its perpetrators are profound and have not been adequately addressed by Pakistan, by India, nor by international

strategic analysts. The absence of state control over all organized perpetrators of cross-border violence

would shake the morale, identity, and standing of the Pakistani Army if its leaders or the public were to

recognize that this is the reality suggested by the use of force by Pakistani citizens or agents against India

when Pakistani authorities deny that these actors or actions have been ordered by the state. In some ways,

the operation by ostensibly uncontrolled violent groups acting from Pakistani territory is a violation of

Pakistani sovereignty, much like Osama bin Laden’s long presence in Pakistan was. In the latter case, the

Pakistani security establishment chose to focus on the United States’ violation of Pakistani sovereignty in

raiding Osama’s compound, but in subsequent debates increasing numbers of Pakistanis acknowledge that

Bin Laden’s presence also was an embarrassment.

Pakistani security officials naturally are loathe to admit this implication out of pride and fear that the

military’s standing and competence would be called into question. Yet, the risks that subconventional uses

of force could escalate to conventional and perhaps nuclear war deny Pakistanis, Indians, and the

international community the luxury of acting as if the disunity of the chain of command is not a fundamental strategic problem. The lack of coherence of authority in Pakistan—and of the state’s monopoly on the

legitimate use of force—is a fundamental strategic problem.

The disunity problem is more worrisome if in fact Pakistani authorities do exert influence or control over

organizations that have conducted terrorist operations in India—and elsewhere—and are merely denying it

Perkovich 26
for tactical reasons. In this case, Pakistani authorities can be treated fairly as the authors of the signals that

are sent by these actors in the military competition with India. India can then seek to manage pre-conflict

and intra-conflict deterrence according to the traditional model, while still facing severe challenges of

escalation control. The challenge certainly is complicated by the ambiguity that Pakistan would be seeking

to create by denying responsibility for future subconventional operations; deterrence stability would be

weaker than in “normal” scenarios. But if India were correct in acting on the belief that Pakistani

authorities were culpable for such operations, the burden of having stepped first on the escalation ladder

would be on Pakistan, and the defender’s advantage in deterrence would accrue to India.

The graver problem arises if and when Pakistani leaders are not in control of the perpetrators of violence

emanating from Pakistani territory. In that case, when faced with an attack, India would conclude that

deterrence had failed or was inapplicable, but that if India did not retaliate it would encourage further attacks

and do nothing to compel Pakistani leaders to assert control over violent actors. But if India did retaliate,

Pakistani leaders, feeling that they had not authorized aggression against India, would feel that India was

initiating war. It is widely recognized that victims of aggression—defenders—are more highly motivated

to retaliate because they have suffered an injustice. Victims of aggression tend to have a higher commitment

to defend than perpetrators do to escalate, and outside powers tend to side with defenders. The combination of greater commitment and international support gives defenders’ deterrent threats weight. Knowing

this, Pakistani defenders would feel that their threats to escalate in response to an Indian attack would be

more credible than if they had been the initiators of the conflict. Indians, of course, would feel that this logic

rewards Pakistani authorities for not exercising a monopoly on the legitimate use of force emanating from

their territory, precisely the situation they want Pakistan to correct.

Perhaps because the classical model of nuclear deterrence was developed in the context of the bipolar U.S.-

Soviet competition in which neither state deployed proxies to commit terrorist or sub-conventional attacks

on the other’s homeland, the model is relatively silent on how such low-intensity aggression could or should

be deterred. The literature’s silence on this problem, and Pakistan’s self-interested belief that nuclear

deterrence should be applied only to the conventional-nuclear threat spectrum, further distract analysts and

policy-makers from wrestling with the problems that sub-conventional violence poses to deterrence

stability. Yet, as psychologist Steven Pinker has elaborated in his masterly book, The Better Angels of Our

Nature, “the necessity of vengeful punishment as a deterrent...has been demonstrated repeatedly in

mathematical and computer models of the evolution of cooperation.”5 Retaliation “is necessary for

cooperation, for preventing a nice guy from being exploited.” If one does not retaliate, it may invite further

aggression. Of course, if competitors merely engage in a cycle of action and retaliation, both end up losing

over time. Survival and betterment require moves to break the cycle. The victim of aggression may

retaliate and at the same time signal an interest in returning to cooperation in which both sides refrain from

further violence. Psychological experiments and computer modeling indicate that the cycle can be broken

by “random” grants of forgiveness of an aggression and an invitation to cooperate. To make this strategy

work over time, of course, the actor who has been forgiven a transgression should display contrition for the

transgressive act. Otherwise, the forgiver can be perceived embarrassingly as a sucker, which can trigger

powerful emotions of vengefulness.

This dynamic has been on display in the post-Mumbai relationship between India and Pakistan. India

suffered the attack, but Prime Minister Manmohau Singh resisted pressures to retaliate and, in essence,

forgave Pakistan in order to avoid an escalatory cycle of retaliation. Pakistani leaders, half-heartedly and

ambiguously, signaled regret for the terrorist attacks—while denying direct responsibility for them. The

opportunity has been created for cooperation to stabilize the situation. No matter how justified Pakistanis

might feel the acts of jihadis operating in India are, and how much they feel India should “get over it,” they

would be wise to recognize that India’s interests in reinforcing deterrence, in not looking like suckers, and

in satisfying emotional impulses for revenge make the situation quite precarious in the event of another

terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to specify how Pakistan, India and interested outside parties could or

should redress the challenges to deterrence stability discussed above. The safest way to defuse this

27 Pakistan’s Motivations
unstable competition and reinforce deterrence stability, of course, is for Pakistan to make unambiguous

efforts to restore the monopoly on the legitimate use of force that is central to modern statehood. The onus

for this lies within Pakistan, of course, but India and the U.S. would be wise to concentrate their policy

formulation and execution with this in mind. More broadly, policy-makers and analysts interested in nuclear

deterrence would be wise to recognize that the unitary rational actor model that has for so long shaped

thinking and policy may not always apply. Pakistan is a case that indicates some of the implications of this

observation. Given that deterrence in nuclearized environments will be an ongoing challenge, it behooves

analytical communities in the U.S. and elsewhere to treat the Indo-Pakistan deterrence challenge as a

laboratory for diagnosis and development of potential remediating approaches.

----------

Notes:

1 The fixation on the threat that India could weaken or dismember Pakistan underestimates the reality that the East

Pakistan crisis stemmed from West Pakistan’s maltreatment of East Pakistan. The gravest threats to Pakistani unity

today also are caused by internal injustices and misgovernance, including in Balochistan, which some in Pakistan fear

could go the way of East Pakistan.

2 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and William H. Riker, “An Assessment of the Merits of Selective Nuclear Proliferation,”

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 2 (June 1982), p. 292.

3 Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 3rd edition, 2003), p. 173.

4 Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan on the Brink (New York: Viking, 2012), p. 47.

5 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature (New York: Viking, 2011), p. 532.

Perkovich 28
Paul I. Bernstein is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Defense University

Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (NDU WMD Center) in Washington,

DC. He is engaged in a range of research, policy support and professional military

education activities related to WMD threat and response and broader strategic security

issues, to include nuclear policy, deterrence, nonproliferation and arms control, counterproliferation, and regional security. Prior to joining NDU, Mr. Bernstein served as a Vice

President and Senior Program Manager with Science Applications International Corporation

(SAIC) in McLean, VA, where he was responsible for managing government-sponsored

research programs and leading strategic analysis projects. Mr. Bernstein was a member of

the Combating WMD Panel of the DoD Threat Reduction Advisory Committee from 2005 to

2009 and has supported development of key combating WMD strategy and concept

documents.

He is a regular guest instructor at National War College, Industrial College of the Armed

Forces, senior service war colleges and other professional military education venues. He

is author most recently of The Origins of Nunn-Lugar and Cooperative Threat Reduction

(Case Study 3), NDU WMD Center, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Looking

Back, Looking Ahead (Occasional Paper 7), NDU WMD Center, “Combating WMD

Collaboratively,” JFQ, Issue 51; International Partnerships to Combat Weapons of Mass

Destruction, (Occasional Paper 6), NDU WMD Center; “Shaping the Nuclear Landscape,”

JFQ, Issue 46; The Future Nuclear Landscape, (Occasional Paper 5), NDU WMD Center;

and “Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Primer,” prepared for the Comparative Strategic

Cultures Curriculum: Assessing Strategic Culture as a Methodological Approach to

Understanding WMD Decision Making by States and Non-State Actors. Mr. Bernstein holds

a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer is an Assistant Professor at the Norwegian Defence

University College. She obtained her PhD, entitled Nuclear Entrepreneurs: Drivers of

Nuclear Proliferation, from the London School of Economics in 2010. The dissertation was

awarded the British International Studies Association Prize for best doctoral thesis in

International Studies in 2010. Dr. Braut-Hegghammer has carried out fieldwork in North

Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

From 2008-2010 she was a Research Fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at the

South Asian Strategic Stability Institute in Islamabad, Pakistan. Dr. Braut-Hegghammer has

published her work in The Nonproliferation Review, The Middle East Journal, the RUSI

Journal, and International Security. She has published op-eds in the International Herald

Tribune, Huffington Post, and leading Norwegian newspapers.

Selected publications include “Revisiting Osirak: Preventive Attacks and Nuclear

Proliferation Risks,” in International Security, Vol. 36, No. 1, Summer 2011; “Libya’s Nuclear

Turnaround: Perspectives from Tripoli,” in The Middle East Journal, Winter 2007-2008; and

“Rebel Without A Cause? Explaining Iraq’s Response to Resolution 1441,” in The

Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2006.

Contributors

29 Nuclear Workshop
Norman Cigar is director of regional studies and the Minerva Research Chair at the

Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia. Previously, he was on the staff of the Marine

Corps Command and Staff College and the Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfighting,

where he taught military theory, strategy and policy, military history, and regional studies.

Before that, he was a senior political military analyst in the Pentagon, where he was

responsible for the Middle East in the Office of the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for

Intelligence and supported the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and

Congress with intelligence. He also represented the Army on national-level intelligence

issues with the interagency intelligence community. During the Gulf War, he was the Army’s

senior political-military intelligence staff officer on the Desert Shield/Desert Storm Task

Force.

He is the author of numerous works on politics and security issues dealing with the Middle

East and the Balkans, and has been a consultant at the International Criminal Tribunal for

the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. He has also taught at the National Defense

Intelligence College; was a visiting fellow at the Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution,

George Mason University; and was a senior associate with the Public International Law

and Policy Group. He is now focusing on the strategic and military aspects of radical Islamic

movements and on proliferation issues.

Dr. Cigar holds a D.Phil. from Oxford (St. Antony’s College) in Middle East History and

Arabic; a Master of International Affairs degree from the School of International and Public

Affairs, and a Certificate from the Middle East Institute, Columbia University; and a Master

of Science of Strategic Intelligence degree from the National Defense Intelligence College.

He has studied and traveled widely in the Middle East.

Major General Susan Y. Desjardins, USAF, is Director of Plans and Policy, U.S.

Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb. She is directly responsible to the

USSTRATCOM Commander for the development and implementation of national security

policy and guidance; military strategy and guidance; space and weapons employment

concepts and policy; and joint doctrine as they apply to the command and the execution of

its missions. She is also responsible for the development of the nation's strategic war plan,

strategic support plans for theater combatant commanders and contingency planning for the

global strike mission.

General Desjardins received her commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in May 1980.

She has held a variety of staff positions at the major command, Joint Staff and

Headquarters U.S. Air Force levels, including deputy military assistant to the Secretary of

the Air Force. Her commands include an air refueling squadron, an operations group and

airlift wing. She has served as Commandant of Cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy and

Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements and Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility

Command, Scott AFB, Ill.

The general is a command pilot with more than 3,800 flying hours in the KC-10, C-17,

C-5, KC-135R, KC-135A and T-37.

Contributors 30
Olli Heinonen became a senior fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center in August 2010. Prior

to this position, he spent 27 years at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

Heinonen spent the last five years as Deputy Director General of the IAEA, and head of its

Department of Safeguards. He led the Agency's efforts to identify and dismantle nuclear

proliferation networks, including the one led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, and he

oversaw its efforts to monitor and contain Iran's nuclear program. Dr. Heinonen led teams

of international investigators to examine nuclear programs of concern around the world. He

inspected nuclear facilities in South Africa, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere,

seeking to ensure that nuclear materials were not diverted for military purposes. He is

considered one of the world's leading experts on Iran's nuclear program. He led the

Agency's efforts in recent years to implement an analytical culture to guide and complement

traditional verification activities.

A native of Finland, Dr. Heinonen studied radiochemistry and completed his Ph.D

dissertation in nuclear material analysis at the University of Helsinki. Before joining the IAEA

in 1983, he was a Senior Research Officer at the Technical Research Centre of Finland

Reactor Laboratory, in charge of research and development related to nuclear waste

solidification and disposal. He is co-author of several patents on radioactive waste

solidification. At the IAEA, from 1999 to 2002, he was Director of Operations A and from

2002-2005, he was the Director of Operations B in the Department of Safeguards.

Stephanie Kramer was the research assistant for the Minerva Initiative at the Marine

Corps University. Prior to joining the MCU, she worked as a research associate at the

Congressional Research Service in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. She

holds a bachelor’s degree in linguistics from the University of California, Santa Cruz, where

she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She is currently pursuing a PhD.

in linguistics at Georgetown University.

Frank Pabian is the Senior Geospatial Information Analyst at the Los Alamos National

Laboratory in the Global Security Directorate and a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center

for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). Mr. Pabian has nearly 40 years in the

nuclear nonproliferation and satellite imagery analysis fields including 30 years with U.S.

National Laboratories. During 1996-1998, he served as Nuclear Chief Inspector for the

United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during ground inspections in

Iraq, focusing primarily on equipment/materials “Hide Sites”, and “Capable Sites” that were

deemed potentially associated with weapons of mass destruction development and/or

production.

His responsibilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory include “Rest-of-World” infrastructure

analysis involving the exploitation of all-source information, particularly commercial satellite

imagery in combination with openly available geospatial tools for visualization. Mr. Pabian

has published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals on the use of commercial

satellite imagery for treaty verification and monitoring, and his work has been featured on

magazine covers and in textbooks for training in the nonproliferation and intelligence

professions. Mr. Pabian is a recipient of the U.S. Intelligence Community Seal Medallion

(gold medal) for “sustained superior performance” for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

verification support to the IAEA during South Africa’s denuclearization, and for associated

discoveries derived from original analysis of all-source, including open source, information.

Mr. Pabian is also a “Certified Mapping Scientist, Remote Sensing” with the American

Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASP&RS).

31 Nuclear Workshop
George Perkovich is vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program

at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on nuclear

strategy and nonproliferation, with a focus on South Asia and Iran, and on the problem of

justice in the international political economy.

He is the author of the award-winning book India’s Nuclear Bomb (University of California

Press, 2001). He is co-author of the Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, published

in September 2008 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This paper is the

basis of the book Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, which includes 17 critiques by

13 eminent international commentators. An expert on Pakistan and South Asia, he wrote a

report published September 2011, entitled “Stop Enabling Pakistan’s Dangerous

Dysfunction.” Dr. Perkovich is also co-author of a major Carnegie report, Universal

Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, a blueprint for rethinking the international

nuclear nonproliferation regime. The report offers a fresh approach to deal with states and

terrorists, nuclear weapons, and fissile materials to ensure global safety and security.

He served as a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser to Senator Joe Biden from 1989 to

1990. Perkovich is an adviser to the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation

and Disarmament and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force on U.S.

Nuclear Policy. He earned his B.A. from University of California at Santa Cruz; his M.A.

from Harvard University; and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

Sharon Squassoni is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies,

where she directs the Proliferation Prevention Program. Her research and writing focuses

on nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and nonproliferation. She joined CSIS from the

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2002-2007, Ms. Squassoni advised

Congress as a senior specialist in weapons of mass destruction at the Congressional

Research Service. She served in the State Department and the Arms Control and

Disarmament Agency from 1992 to 2001.

Ms. Squassoni has published widely and is a frequent commentator for U.S. and

international media outlets. She holds a Masters in Public Management from the University

of Maryland and graduated with distinction from the National War College.

Contributors 32
Amin Tarzi is the Director of Middle East Studies at Marine Corps University (MCU) in

Quantico, Virginia. In his position, he supports MCU by providing a resident scholar with

expertise in the Middle East and South/Central Asia, and provides expert advice for all

Professional Military Education programs, and mentoring the AfPak Hands Marines

assigned to MCU. Prior to joining the MCU, he was with Radio Free Europe/Radio

Liberty’s Regional Analysis team focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. While working at

RFE/RL, he also taught courses in political Islam, cultural intelligence, and terrorist

organizations at the Washington-based Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Before

joining RFE/RL, Dr. Tarzi worked as Senior Research Associate for the Middle East at the

Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS),

where he primarily researched Iran and its missile and nuclear developments and policies,

and taught a graduate seminar on Middle East security.

He has also been a Political Advisor to the Saudi Arabian Mission to the United Nations,

where he dealt with the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Somalia; the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) extension; Iranian behavior in the United Nations; and

Security Council expansion. After his tenure with the Saudi government, Dr. Tarzi held the

position of Researcher/Analyst on Iranian affairs at the Emirates Center for Strategic

Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi.

Dr. Tarzi earned his Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from the Department of Middle East Studies

at New York University. His latest works are Taliban and the Crisis in Afghanistan, a coedited volume with Professor Robert D. Crews of Stanford University (Harvard University

Press, 2008) and The Iranian Puzzle Piece: Understanding Iran in the Global Context

(Marine Corps University Press, 2009).

Joel S. Wit is concurrently a Senior Research Fellow at the Columbia University

Weatherhead Institute for East Asian Studies, and a Visiting Fellow at the U.S.-Korea

Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Mr. Wit worked for 15 years in the U.S. Department of State on arms control and

non-proliferation issues. From 1988 to 1992, Wit helped negotiate strategic arms control

agreements with the former Soviet Union and participated in the Nunn-Lugar program to

dismantle its nuclear weapons. From 1993-1995, Joel Wit served as Senior Advisor to

Ambassador Robert L. Gallucci, where he developed strategies to help resolve the crisis

over North Korea’s weapons program, and from 1995-2001 he was the Coordinator for

Implementation of the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework.

After leaving the State Department, he was a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and

International Studies. Mr. Wit is the co-author of Going Critical: The First North Korean

Nuclear Crisis published by the Brookings Institute Press in 2004. He has written

numerous journal and newspaper articles on North Korea, and has appeared frequently on

television and radio. He received his M.I.A. from Columbia University in 1979 and his B.A.

from Bucknell University in 1976.

33 Nuclear Workshop
M

iddleEastStudies

atthe

MarineCorpsUniversity
Middle East Studies

at the Marine Corps University

To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club: How Nation Think

about Nuclear Weapons: Lessons from and for the Middle East

MES Monographs • No. 4 April 2013

The current debate revolving around Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs highlights the need to

foster a more complete understanding of the multidimensionality of states’ decision-making process on

whether to acquire and retain nuclear weapons. Case studies from the greater Middle East region offer the

opportunity to examine the factors such states take into consideration when determining which path to

follow. Such factors include threat perceptions, the interpretation of lessons learned from the experience

of other countries, the calculus of perceived costs and benefits for national security, the envisioned modes

of employment of nuclear weapons (political and military), and the legal/ethical considerations—all from

the perspective of regional actors. Furthermore, a country's specific political decisionmaking process and

its institutions are also key factors in understanding how actual and potential regional nuclear powers make

decisions on the nuclear issue. As such, an understanding of the motivations and of the perceived utility

of nuclear weapons from the perspective of recent and potential nuclear powers can help senior leaders craft

more effective U.S. and multilateral nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and deterrence strategies. This

issue is a revised and expanded version of the fourth issue of the MES Monograph Series and includes a

forward by former Minerva Chair Dr. Norman Cigar and his research assistant Stephanie Kramer, as well

as rapporteur notes prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group.

Revised and Expanded Edition • September 2013