Up to 1949, the United States held a nuclear monopoly: it was the only country with a nuclear weapon.
A key part of US policy during that time was to maintain that monopoly (which really started during World War II). academic.oup.com/ahr/article-ab…
A good example of that effort was the "Baruch Plan", whereby the United States, through the UN, would proposed to assist other countries in developing nuclear energy (but not weapons).
After that, a pillar of the US-led "rules-based order" was enforcing that legal prohibition on the development of nuclear weapons. unidir.org/commentary/int…
This entailed stopping other countries from acquiring the bomb -- calling them "outlaw" countries or "rogue states" or just "evil". nytimes.com/video/us/polit…
It also meant negotiating arms control treaties with existing nuclear powers... amazon.com/dp/B094DRDCWD/…
...and, such as during the 1990s, working with Russia to remove nuclear weapons from other countries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_…
But overclassification makes sense if one recognizes that US post-1945 foreign policy is focused on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons technology.
The concern is that such documents could be used to help another state acquire the bomb. After all, it's not unusual for people to try to sell US nuclear secrets.
The "Security Dilemma" does NOT help us understand the War in Ukraine.
But the War in Ukraine does help us understand the "Security Dilemma".
[THREAD]
This past week, @stephenWalt wrote a @ForeignPolicy piece on the "security dilemma", its relevance to contemporary events, and its apparent lack of influence in policy.
That piece prompted a BUNCH of responses from international relations scholars (such as by @SevaUT below), especially over Walt's use of the term "preventive war" when describing how the "security dilemma" relates to Russia's invasion.
Assumption 1: Invasion about NATO nukes (or even about NATO)
Why it's wrong: 3 reasons
First, 🇷🇺-🇺🇦 tensions pre-date NATO post-Cold War expansion. For example, John Mearsheimer argued back in 1993(!) that Ukraine shouldn't give up nukes on its territory foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukrai…
Second, Putin's aims are imperial expansion. For example, @e_sarotte has pointed out a number of times that the timing of the invasion corresponds with the 30th anniversary of the USSR collapse (which Putin considered the 20th century's "biggest tragedy). ft.com/content/742f15…