核兵器全廃論の浮上とその課題

安全保障の理論と政策

抄録

The elimination of nuclear weapons as a long-term goal, as advocated by the Stimson Center, the Canberra Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences, has drawn considerable attention in the West in recent years. This tendency has arisen from the perceived decline in the utility of nuclear forces along with the growing awareness of the costs and risks associated with them. While the necessity for deterring Russian attack by the threat of nuclear retaliation has diminished, the political and economic instabilities in the former Soviet Union make it urgent to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch and the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the promotion of nuclear reductions. As long as nuclear weapons remain in national arsenals, they have the potential of offsetting the undisputed superiority in conventional military capabilities that the West (the United States in particular) has come to enjoy. The viability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime rests on whether the nuclear-weapon states can meet the rising expectations on the part of the non-nuclear weapon states regarding the former's disarmament obligations. The economic and social burdens imposed by nuclear armaments including their impact on the environment and human health have increasingly been appreciated.
On the other hand, the case for total nuclear disarmament presented in the reports of the three organizations mentioned above has to clear a number of theoretical hurdles before its validity is established. First, while they premise phased reductions of nuclear forces on increased cooperation among nuclear-armed powers, the strengthening of the nonproliferation regime, and a credible verification system, those reports say little about how to obtain these conditions except for asserting that the very process of nuclear disarmament would facilitate the task. More important, the proponents of nuclear abolition should pay more attention to the possibility that the curtailment of the U. S. nuclear arsenal might encourage the spread of nuclear weapons if it lessens the security of its allies or enboldens its regional adversaries. The views of the “proliferation optimists” and of those who favor the role of nuclear weapons in deterring the use of chemical and biological weapons must also be countered more convincingly. Last but not least, a theoretical foundation must be sought for the preservation of cooperation among major powers after the elimination of nuclear weapons has been achieved. While international relations scholars generally agree that the presence of nuclear arms critically contributed to the “long peace” after World War II, a consensus has yet to emerge as to whether factors such as the spread of democracy, the growth of economic interdependence, and the development of collective security would effectively eliminate the possibility of war among major powers in the absence of nuclear weapons.