“stability-instability paradox,”

 Why the US won’t send troops to Ukraine

By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com  Feb 25, 2022

In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in a naked war of territorial aggression. The next year, the US and an allied coalition intervened under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, repulsing the Iraqi invasion. Today, as Russia is engaged in a similar aggressive war against Ukraine, there is no similar American effort in the offing — even as Ukrainian leaders have pleaded for Western assistance.

1990年イラクがクエートを侵略したとき、アメリカは介入したが、今日ロシアがウクライナに介入しても、アメリカは介入しないと言っている。

　いろいろ違いはあるが一番大きな違いは、イラクは核兵器を持っていなかった、ということ。

 In a sense, then, Russia’s nuclear weapons make it less likely that the conflict will kick off World War III.

But in another sense, Russia’s nuclear arsenal also helped create the conditions where Putin’s invasion could happen in the first place.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, explained

Political scientists call this the “stability-instability paradox,” the notion that nuclear deterrence has had the paradoxical effect of making certain kinds of conventional warfare more likely.

　ロシアが核兵器があったからこそ、アメリカが介入せず、第3次世界大戦が起きるのを防いでいるのだが、他方、ロシアに核兵器があるからこそ、ロシアは核兵器を盾に通常兵器で他国を侵略しているのだ、と。これは安定・不安定のパラドックスと言われるんだ、と。 

引用している論文

Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict: Theories and Empirical Evidencefree

Daniel S. Geller

結論部分だけみると

Three conclusions may be drawn from the patterns discussed above.

1.

Wars among nuclear-armed states are improbable. If confrontations do escalate to the level of violence, such violence will likely remain conventional. Hence, the spread of nuclear weapons increasingly supports the maintenance of the status quo.

2.

Crises among nuclear powers have a higher probability of escalating—short of war—than do crises for asymmetric or nonnuclear dyads. It is apparent that symmetric nuclear dyads engage in dangerous tactics involving the manipulation of risk as a means of securing policy, objectives.

3.

In asymmetric dyads the possession of nuclear weapons does not impede aggressive behavior by a nonnuclear adversary. Hence, the advantage in holding nuclear weaponry does not translate into bargaining leverage in confrontations between nuclear states and their nonnuclear adversaries.

核保有国同士の戦争はたぶんない。しかし、

核保有国同士でも戦争にいたらない紛争にはなりやすい。

核保有していても、核無保有国からの攻撃を避けられるわけでもない、と。

ーーー全部読んでないからわからんけど、こういうのを読むと、核の傘のもと、核保有していない、というのもまんざら悪くもないかも、とも言える・・・・微妙だね。

　ただ、核の傘が破れ傘だったり、当てにならなければやっぱ核武装したほうがいいんだろうな・・・・かな。