RSS Feed MenuToday’s Washington Post has a lengthy front-page feature entitled, “Obama must decide degree to which U.S. swears off nuclear weapons.”
Of course, as I argued here at FrumForum two days ago, that’s exactly the wrong question to ask: because nuclear weapons aren’t the problem; bad governments and bad political actors are. And the United States requires a robust and modernized nuclear arsenal to deter both conventional and nuclear war.
So rather than seek to “swear off” nuclear weapons, the United States should seek to strengthen and upgrade its nuclear arsenal.
But we’re not doing that. Instead, we’re pledging to dramatically and unilaterally reduce our nuclear stockpile; ban low-yield, deeply-burrowing warheads, which might be used to destroy hidden nuclear facilities in Iran or North Korea; and explicitly foreswearing the use of nuclear weapons except in the most unlikely and farfetched of circumstances.
Needless to say, all of these Obama administration initiatives are seriously undermining the deterrent value of our nuclear arsenal. And this is something that America’s more vulnerable allies — especially our East European friends, who have a long and recent memory of externally-imposed tyranny — find troubling and disconcerting.
Indeed, the Post reports that Petr Kolar, the Czech ambassador to the United States is “skeptical” of Obama’s anti-nuke stance.
A country like ours, with a very special experience, with its own history [of outside domination, first by the Nazis and then by the Soviets] — we are maybe more cautious than some other countries…
My personal perspective is… we shouldn’t actually lose the instruments [-- i.e., nuclear warheads --] we so far have. What’s the change that would be gained by that?
In fact, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose. Yet, the Post quotes Jan Lodal, a “senior Defense Department official in the Clinton administration”:
The United States can’t go around and ask others to give up their nuclear warheads while we maintain a list of official purposes for our nuclear weapons’ that necessitate a large arsenal.
Nonsense. Of course we can — and we should.
Lodal and the Left argue that other countries won’t give up their nuclear weapons unless the United States does the same and begins to foreswear the use of such weapons. This new form of appeasement has obvious political appeal, but it is as false and as dangerous as earlier forms of appeasement — and it posits an ahistorical argument.
In the 1990s, for instance, the United States deeply cut its nuclear arsenal by some 70-80 percent, says the Lexington Institute’s Dan Goure. However, he notes, that didn’t stop Iran or North Korea from continuing to seek and to build nuclear weapons.
In truth, most other countries recognize that the United States has no imperial designs or plans of plunder and conquest. Thus they really don’t fear our possession of nuclear weapons.
In fact, many countries — in Eastern Europe, for instance — want and welcome the American nuclear umbrella. Consequently, they fear the Obama administration’s attempt to deprecate the role and importance of nuclear weapons.
Nonetheless, the hard Left is pressuring the president to move full speed ahead with his campaign pledge to disarm America. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, for instance, insists that what is urgently needed is “a significant pulling back of the reach of the nuclear sword.”
Moreover, according to the Post:
More than two dozen Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), chairman of the intelligence committee, have pressed Obama to adopt language saying the ‘sole’ or ‘only’ purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is deterrence. It would not prevent the U.S. government from using a weapon first, but would deemphasize that option in planning.
But planning is the mother’s milk of U.S. military operations — the sine qua non of everything the U.S. military does and does not do. Indeed, if it’s not being planned for, then for all practical intents and purposes, it doesn’t exist; it likely cannot happen; and, therefore, it won’t have any deterrent value.
‘We’re better off when we communicate that all options are on the table,’ said Thomas Mahnken, a senior Defense Department official in the Bush administration.
That’s exactly right. Communicating anything different is inherently risky. It’s inherently risky because it invites America’s enemies to test and to provoke us out of the mistaken belief that we might not do everything possible to defend ourselves and our interests.
The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is one month late, allegedly because of fierce internal debates over what the right policy is and ought to be. But really, what seems to be at issue is not the direction in which the administration will move — it will move left, and it will move to disarm America.
Instead, what seems to be at issue is just how far left the administration will move, and just how much disarmament Obama intends to achieve.
kevin47 // Mar 7, 2010 at 10:58 pm
“If I deter you from an action because I have a gun you are deterred.”
If you proceed to toss aside your gun, I am no longer deterred. If I go get more guns, I am no longer deterred. You stated that it is impossible to “deter someone twice”, which doesn’t make any sense. Your poor expression of the language does not render me dense.
Further, simply because you have deterred one bad actor, that does not mean you have deterred them all.
“Once again you need to read the speech in the context of the Military industrial complex directing the democratic process in order to bring about outcomes that suit that complex.”
Yeah, I understand how you want me to read it. I have also argued with dozens of liberals who think that Eisenhower was opposed to the concept of a military industrial complex. I do not agree that the existence of our nuclear program constitutes a self-serving manifestation of the military industrial complex.
If you have to supply the context, then it scarcely suffices to note that Eisenhower got it perfect, and end your point there. The better way to express your argument is that you believe his statement was prescient, and explain why. But doing so bring us right back to the same argument.
Asking me to do research is not an argument.
“In fact now we have the Military industrial congressional complex, because so many Senators and Congressmen are deeply tied with the defense contractors.”
We had it then as well. Eisenhower only struck the reference as a favor to certain congressmen, so I guess you could say we have a military-industrial-congressional-executive complex.
SFTor1 // Mar 8, 2010 at 2:06 am
Kevin47:
1. Do you believe the current nuclear deterrent (9,600 warheads) is sufficient?
2. Do you believe a nuclear deterrent of 3,000 warheads would be sufficient? If not, why not?
3. Do you believe one leg of the triad (say, bombers) could be removed without diminishing the deterrent?
4. Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use strategic nuclear weapons.
5. Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use tactical nuclear weapons.
mickster99 // Mar 8, 2010 at 2:10 am
Naked to attack by who specifically? Hysteria and paranoia need not be the basis of a reasonable to approach to how many nukes we have. Again I need to ask naked attack by who specifically? China, I think not, Russia, I think not. The bellicosity of Communist Russian and Communist China peaked in the 80’s. Now its North Korean or Iran we need to fear? Really. Our nuclear arsenal includes delivery by nuclear submarine, a bomber fleet including the aging but effective B52s and of the course the B1 and B2 plus Cruise missile delivery from missile cruiser or tactical nukes delivered by attack bombers from our carrier fleets. I mean you really have to get yourself worked up into a truly frighten frothy hysteria to be so afrad of attack from THEM. Whoever THEM is. Really, it’s the year 2010 not 1950. But some of us just can’t let go of the need to be in constant state of fear and irrational anxiety from a all powerful ill-defined unknown enemy. Sort of like Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggage folks and their paranoid delusions about maoist, commie, socialist, Nazi’s taking over the government. I think some of the commenters to the this post are just plain nuts and have clearing gone over the edge. Rightwingers have gone bonkers really.
BoolaBoola // Mar 8, 2010 at 3:25 am
The fact is we have like ten times more nuclear firepower than we need.
I disagree with Obama’s idea of a nuke-free world, but eliminating 90% is a good, realistic goal. We’ll never miss them.
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:45 am
SFTor1: Do you believe the current nuclear deterrent (9,600 warheads) is sufficient?
It’s not the number, it’s the age.
I’ve explained that to you once before.
But I’ll do it again.
I don’t think ANY systems that are 30 years old and haven’t been tested in the field even once since then is “sufficient.” If the U.S. were backed into a corner where it had to use its weapons and a large number of them turned out to be duds, that would be a catastrophe for this nation.
I would be happy to have a smaller but more modernized force. That means building a new generation of tested state-of-the-art modern warheads, but build fewer of them than the number being retired.
What I do NOT support is your Leftist idea to just leave the warheads gathering dust in hopes that they all turn into duds.
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:47 am
SFTor1: Do you believe one leg of the triad (say, bombers) could be removed without diminishing the deterrent?
No.
Bombers remain the only effective way to attack moving targets, like rail-mobile ICBMs and mobile command posts. We still haven’t quite gotten to the point that we can retarget a submarine-launched SLBM quickly enough to hit a moving target.
You may have noticed that bombers have proven quite effective in the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Ask yourself why.
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 am
SFTor1: Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use tactical nuclear weapons.
An enemy command post built hundreds of feet underground (like NORAD headquarters under Cheyenne Mountain) is likely to be impervious to anything but a direct nuclear hit. No Russian conventional bombs could have taken out NORAD.
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:51 am
SFTor1: Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use strategic nuclear weapons.
Any direct nuclear attack on the U.S.
If terrorists got a hold of a nuke from say, Iran, and detonated it in an American city causing that city to be destroyed, I cannot envision that the American people would accept anything less than a nuclear response from the United States. Any President who did anything less would be destroyed politically, along with just about all his supporters in his party.
Independent // Mar 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm
While liberals on this site might like to turn the argument into a hysterical one of “how many nukes is sufficient to destroy all mankind, 9000 times over” and conservatives here might like to another approach, the simple truth is that both have missed the real issue.
Obama has announced a unilateral move –with nothing in return from Russia or anyone else. Not a single thing. It’s a reckless form of foreign diplomacy predicated on ridiculously grand gestures instead of hard-edged negotiating tactics.
The bigger problem is that it now seems to be a trend for Obama. He did it with his reversal of US policy on the eastern Europe nuke shield. He did it with his unilateral withdrawl timeline from Iraq and the surge/withdrawl in Afghanistan. He’ll do it again when he tells the world that America is repealing the Patriot Act.
We get zip in return. How is this anything but failed leadership? Selling out for a Nobel –didn’t Gore teach us anything?
kevin47 // Mar 8, 2010 at 8:31 pm
“1. Do you believe the current nuclear deterrent (9,600 warheads) is sufficient?”
If sufficiently maintained and replaced as necessary.
“2. Do you believe a nuclear deterrent of 3,000 warheads would be sufficient? If not, why not?”
Because those in charge of the program don’t think it would be, for starters, and Sinz makes a very persuasive case that they are right.
“3. Do you believe one leg of the triad (say, bombers) could be removed without diminishing the deterrent?”
No.
“4. Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use strategic nuclear weapons.”
If Iran used a nuke on Israel. If China used a nuke on Taiwan. If we needed to do massive damage to a heavily bunkered military installation. Just off the top of my head.
5. Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use tactical nuclear weapons.
If were at war with a large scale military force, but don’t want a large scale loss of our own soldiers.
SFTor1 // Mar 8, 2010 at 10:15 pm
From Sinz54:
“SFTor1:
Please list some likely scenarios where the United States would use strategic nuclear weapons.
Sinz: Any direct nuclear attack on the U.S.
If terrorists got a hold of a nuke from say, Iran, and detonated it in an American city causing that city to be destroyed, I cannot envision that the American people would accept anything less than a nuclear response from the United States. Any President who did anything less would be destroyed politically, along with just about all his supporters in his party.”
First of all Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The most likely scenario is that the weapon would come from one of the poorly guarded stockpiles in one of the Central Asian countries.
So whom would we bomb, exactly? Would it depend on which country had “harbored” the terrorists, although this might have been a case of only a small group within that country having done so?
Would we bomb the country that last had the bomb in its possession? Or would we bomb the nation that the terrorists came from, mostly? (If we had followed that logic after 9/11 we presently would be occupying Saudi Arabia and maybe Egypt, not Iraq and Afghanistan.)
Would we bomb the capital, or would we pick a city of roughly equal size to the U.S. one to show that “you can’t mess with us?” And we would launch a strategic nuclear weapon, somewhere in the megaton-range? On people who most likely had nothing to do with the whole thing?
Some more observations:
I’m sure Kevin doesn’t mean that we would use strategic weapons against battlefield or C2 targets. As far as the strategic scenarios I find it strange to posit that Iran would use nukes against Israel. As mentioned it doesn’t have any. Israel does. So doesn’t Israel have its own deterrent? Why would the U.S. need to bomb? Last time I checked Israel was an independent nation with its own defense policy.
Would China launch a nuke on Taiwan, when they have all the forces they need to invade and occupy? After all, China seeks to “repatriate” Taiwan, not destroy it.
So if we are at war with a large scale military force (which exactly? China? Russia? Those are after all the only possible candidates. OK, maybe North Korea) we would risk escalating a conventional conflict into nuclear war, against a nuclear power with its own tactical and strategic weapons?
If we were to use tactical nukes against a nation without nuclear weapons, don’t we face the exact same retaliation from nuclear friends of the country we would be invading? Say we invade Iran, and Pakistan chooses to retaliate against U.S. forces after a nuclear attack, based on the logic that the U.S. was indiscriminately killing Moslems, which we would be?
And the bombers are indispensable because they would fly over a target and drop nukes? From say Landstuhl in Germany to Iran or Pakistan? Instead of using cruise missiles, which suddenly have lost their accuracy?
“Those in charge of the program don’t think it would be?” Which ones of “those in charge” are saying this? Are there citations? Quotes? Comments? Links? And considering that nuclear deterrence is a political consideration, wouldn’t their point of view change with the intentions of the civilian Administration? If our nuclear policy changes, so would the requirements of the arsenal, no? Or has the military developed its own policies on nuclear deterrence?
I’m not buying it.
kevin47 // Mar 9, 2010 at 2:24 am
“First of all Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The most likely scenario is that the weapon would come from one of the poorly guarded stockpiles in one of the Central Asian countries.”
On what basis do you declare this is the most likely scenario? I mean, it’s irrelevant, but you’re leading with it.
“So whom would we bomb, exactly? Would it depend on which country had “harbored” the terrorists, although this might have been a case of only a small group within that country having done so?”
This is precisely why it is important that Iran not get a nuclear weapon. It sets up precisely this moral quandary. You then ask a series of what you apparently perceive to be rhetorical questions. I’m not sure how to answer all of them, but I’m not sure how they would impact our police re: eliminating our own stockpiles.
“Some more observations:”
Glad we’re done with the question mark ruse.
“I’m sure Kevin doesn’t mean that we would use strategic weapons against battlefield or C2 targets.”
What a surprise. You played gotcha with the tactical vs. strategic weapons thing. I certainly did not see that coming. Not going to indulge… Make your arguments like a normal person.
“As far as the strategic scenarios I find it strange to posit that Iran would use nukes against Israel. As mentioned it doesn’t have any.”
And so, always and forever, we can assume they will never launch a nuclear strike. Is this your argument?
“Israel does.”
Yes it does.
“So doesn’t Israel have its own deterrent?”
You are back to the question mark observations. What you are saying is that Israel has its own deterrents, and therefore does not need the American nuclear force to protect them. In so doing, you have pivoted from possible threat scenarios to deterrent scenarios.
If your original question had been “which countries would we hope to deter by maintaining a nuclear arsenal?” I would have answered with your pick of at least a dozen countries.
“Why would the U.S. need to bomb?”
That would depend on the political state of Israel, and whether it had the capacity to respond with a nuclear strike. We align with Britain all the time, even though we have our own independent defense policies. Why? Because our policies incorporate allies. Is this a new argument for you?
“Would China launch a nuke on Taiwan, when they have all the forces they need to invade and occupy?”
Possibly. It certainly seemed likely 15 years ago, and may seem more likely 15 years from now.
“After all, China seeks to “repatriate” Taiwan, not destroy it.”
I think the scare quotes say it all.
“So if we are at war with a large scale military force (which exactly? China? Russia? Those are after all the only possible candidates. OK, maybe North Korea)”
Those are the only possible candidates? China, Russia and (maybe) North Korea? Not Iran? Not Pakistan? Not Turkey?
Do you realize how many soldiers we would lose in a conventional conflict against Turkey alone, to say nothing of what would happen if they found sympathetic allies?
So we have nukes, and we have a lot of them, which means we might use them, which means don’t mess with our friends.
“we would risk escalating a conventional conflict into nuclear war, against a nuclear power with its own tactical and strategic weapons?”
“If we were to use tactical nukes against a nation without nuclear weapons, don’t we face the exact same retaliation from nuclear friends of the country we would be invading?”
The same? No. Especially if we invest in our star wars program. But even if not… No. Not even close. Their destruction is assured, ours is in the realm of the possible. That’s why we spend the big bucks.
“And the bombers are indispensable because they would fly over a target and drop nukes? From say Landstuhl in Germany to Iran or Pakistan? Instead of using cruise missiles, which suddenly have lost their accuracy?”
What is your argument? That you we should move past legacy projects? Sure, and we are doing so, but that isn’t the gist of the debate. None of what you have observed/questioned above begins to make any sort of case for scaling back our nuclear arsenal.
“Those in charge of the program don’t think it would be?” Which ones of “those in charge” are saying this? Are there citations? Quotes? Comments? Links? And considering that nuclear deterrence is a political consideration, wouldn’t their point of view change with the intentions of the civilian Administration? If our nuclear policy changes, so would the requirements of the arsenal, no? Or has the military developed its own policies on nuclear deterrence?
I’m not buying it.
SFTor1 // Mar 9, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Kevin? (OK, that is a gratuitous question mark.)
I’m interested in living in a country that is secure. That means we need a credible defense, and nobody is arguing that U.S. does not have interests to defend outside its borders. There are a whole number of scenarios where enemies of the United States (they exist, and come and go) could hurt the U.S. by limiting access to resources, disrupt our economy, and so on.
My point is this: we overspend on the nuclear. It is a military tool from a previous time, which was built to maintain the terror balance with the Soviet Union through extreme redundancy (more weapons than anyone could knock out.) This was the justification for the Triad as well: if you bombed the silos, you got the planes. If you shot down the planes, you got the subs, or a combination of the surviving weapons systems. This particular threat of massive nuclear attack does not exist anymore. There is no enemy that has the capability to even remotely damage our ability to launch from any of these systems.
Too many Republicans are looking for an excuse to keep them around at their current levels, instead of facing the obvious: they were part of a Cold War strategy that is obsolete. China is not in a nuclear arms race with anybody, neither is anyone else. We don’t need 9,600 warheads today. A thousand of them would most likely cover every thinkable requirement with plenty to spare.
You say that nuclear interception is probably a missing piece today. Sounds likely. So is a credible wall against getting a warhead into the United States in a shipping container, truck, or plane. Companies like Veritainer (http://www.veritainer.com/index.html) are working on solutions. The most likely scenario we are facing is a smuggled weapon. Our nuclear arsenal is impotent towards that threat.
As I wanted to demonstrate, our nuclear deterrent is out of date.
We are overspending on nuclear weapons, and quite possibly underspending on interception and interdiction.