Given the advent of modern strategic weapons, do current U.S. Strategic Forces' planning and decision timelines remain adequate, or do they require fundamental rethinking and adaptation to counter the newest strategic threats? Specifically, the traditional "imminent threat" standard for preemptive self-defense—rooted in the 19th-century Caroline affair—is increasingly inadequate against modern nuclear proliferation. Historically reliant on observable and immediate conventional military mobilization, the standard is now challenged by shrinking "nuclear breakout times." Latent nuclear states can now assemble deliverable weapons in a matter of weeks or days. This creates a dangerous doctrinal gap: an adversary may be on the verge of irreversibly altering the strategic landscape without ever presenting a classic "imminent threat." Consequently, current international legal frameworks force policymakers into an untenable choice between unlawful preemptive action and catastrophic strategic failure. Is the conventional "imminent threat" standard for preemptive action rendered obsolete by the physics and timelines of modern nuclear breakout capabilities? If so, what alternative legal and strategic frameworks can effectively address accelerated proliferation threats and adapt to these new, highly compressed decision timelines?
References:
- Fuhrmann, M. (2024). Influence without arms: the new logic of nuclear deterrence. Cambridge University Press.
- Fuhrmann, M. Datasets. http://www.matthewfuhrmann.com/datasets.html
- Fuhrmann, M., & Tkach, B. (2015). Almost Nuclear: Introducing the Nuclear Latency Dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32(4), 443-461.
- Powell, R. (2015). Nuclear brinkmanship, limited war, and military power. International Organization, 69(3), 589-626.