著者
新垣 拓 防衛研究所地域研究部
出版者
GRIPS Policy Research Center
雑誌
GRIPS Discussion Papers
巻号頁・発行日
vol.18-19, 2018-12

米国の核兵器運用に同盟国を参画させるという核共有制度は、2つの形式をとりながらアイゼンハワー政権において開始された。第1には、NATOの枠組みとは別に、英国に配備したソー・ミサイルを米英2国間で運用する制度であり、第2には、NATOの枠組みにおいて、英国も含むNATO加盟国との2国間協定に基づいてイタリアとトルコに配備したジュピター・ミサイルや戦術核兵器を運用した核備蓄制度であった。ただし、同政権では、これらの2国間・核共有にとどまらず、第3の核共有制度が検討されていた。それは最終的に、NATO内にMRBM戦力部隊を段階的に創設するという、1960年12月のハーター提案というかたちで同盟国に示されることとなった。すなわち、即応性が高くソ連本土を射程に収めるポラリス・ミサイルを、原潜艦隊という海上プラットフォームに基づき多国間で運用する共有制度を、新たに打ち出したのであった。本稿では、未公刊の一次史料に依拠しながら、どのように多国間核共有論が形成・共有されるようになったのか、なぜMRBMが共有対象に選択されたのか、なぜ政権末期というタイミングでの提案に至ったのかという観点から分析を行うことで、米国政府内の主要な政策主体の認識や、核共有の在り方に関する政策論議を明らかにする。
著者
新垣 拓
出版者
JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
雑誌
国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2011, no.163, pp.163_68-80, 2011-01-20 (Released:2013-05-10)
参考文献数
47

The U.S. nuclear sharing policy for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in the late 1950s. The policy's initial objective was to enhance the NATO's defense capability and its readiness by providing the nonnuclear allies with military training for the use of nuclear weapons which were to be transferred from the U.S. custody in case of emergency. However, after the Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik, the nuclear sharing was also beginning to be recognized as an effective nuclear nonproliferation measure for the European allies since Washington anticipated that it could provide further reassurance for the allies and allay their concerns about the reliability of the U.S. extended deterrence. In this context, located at “the front line” and sensitive about the credibility and reliability of the US extended deterrence, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) had become the most important allies that affected the nuclear sharing policy during the Cold War period.For the US government, allowing the Germans too much “access” to its nuclear weapons through the nuclear sharing arrangement might cause serious concerns of other major allies, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and France. Therefore, finding a West Germany's fair “share” in the NATO nuclear defense and, at the same time, avoiding other allies to raise concerns against it was the critical requirement for the success of the nuclear sharing policy. From the latter half of the 1950's to the late 1960s, U.S. government tackled this NATO's nuclear problem by exploring the two different approaches: “hardware solution” or “collective nuclear force approach” and “consultation approach”.The Johnson years were the critical time because the decision was made to adopt the consultation approach, which led to the creation of NATO Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) in 1966. By focusing on the decision-making process and using newly declassified documents, this article will explain that the three deferent processes had affected the decision: the stagnation process of the Multilateral Force (MLF) proposal, the process of gaining acceptance of the consultation approach, and the process of growing momentum to materialize the approach.