中美对“核威慑”理解的差异

发布时间：2018-11-17 09:14

【摘要】：长期以来,中美学者对"核威慑"的理解具有较大的差异。美国学者孤立地看待核武器在冲突单个步骤中的强制作用,认为核强制可以区分为核威慑和核驱使,并在学术和政策研究中强调核威慑和核驱使的区别;中国学者关联地看待核武器在整个冲突升级过程中的强制作用,不强调区分其中的驱使和威慑作用,因此,曾经批评核武器的强制性作用。尽管西方核武器国家强调其核武器用于威慑的目的,但却未能排除其核武器的驱使作用。如果拥有核武器的国家将核武器的作用与较小规模的常规冲突升级挂钩,则无法判断此时核武器是用做核威慑还是核驱使,这样的政策会容纳较多的核驱使成分。相反,如果拥有核武器的国家将其核武器的使用范围仅仅限定为非常小的范围,例如最后手段或者反击核进攻,此时核武器的作用与小规模冲突的关联不大,这样的政策有助于排除核驱使的成分。现在,在核武器总体作用下降的同时,将核武器作用与小规模冲突挂钩的思想有所回潮,这可能给国际安全带来负面影响,值得警惕。
[Abstract]:For a long time, Chinese and American scholars have different understanding of nuclear deterrence. American scholars view the coercive role of nuclear weapons in a single step of conflict in isolation, and think that nuclear coercion can be divided into nuclear deterrence and nuclear drive, and emphasize the distinction between nuclear deterrence and nuclear drive in academic and policy research. Chinese scholars have viewed the coercive role of nuclear weapons in the whole process of conflict escalation with no emphasis on the distinction between the driving and deterrent roles and have therefore criticized the coercive role of nuclear weapons. Western nuclear-weapon states, while emphasizing their nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes, have failed to rule out the driving power of their nuclear weapons. If the nuclear-weapon states link the role of nuclear weapons to the escalation of smaller conventional conflicts, it is impossible to determine whether nuclear weapons are used as a nuclear deterrent or as a nuclear force at the time, and such a policy would contain more nuclear drivers. On the contrary, if States possessing nuclear weapons limit their use of nuclear weapons to very small ones, such as last resort or counterattack, the role of nuclear weapons has little to do with small-scale conflicts. Such a policy would help eliminate nuclear-driven elements. Now, while the overall role of nuclear weapons is declining, the idea of linking the role of nuclear weapons to small-scale conflicts is back on the bandwagon, which could have a negative impact on international security and deserves vigilance.
【作者单位】：清华大学国际关系学系;卡内基国际和平研究院;
【分类号】：D815.2;D822.371.2

【共引文献】