Again, banning nuclear weapons is a foolish dream and a waste of Obama's limited political capital in national security affairs
Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 4:12AM EDITORIAL: "To Russia With Love: Degrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal," Wall Street Journal, 4-5 April 2009.
Obama's team proposes a replacement to START that would limit both sides to 1k nuclear warheads (not weapons, warheads). We currently have about 4k and Russia has 5k. Bush-Cheney had an agreement with Moscow to go down to 1700 US and 2200 Russia by 2012.
I could live with both sides dropping down to maybe 2500 a piece, but to me, 1k is too low. I like a big, "unthinkable" lead on the rest of the world and I don't worry about having Russia along for that ride, because we cancel each other out in that regard.
But we can argue over the best long-term number. What we should not argue over is this notion of trying to get the world to zero. Since that simply will not happen for rising great powers any time soon, we need to remain many-fold larger than their current/desired arsenal levels, and we need to keep our arsenals in solid shape.
That's why Obama's rejection of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (simple updating) program is deeply flawed. Gates wants it and so does the military. Without it, our arsenal degrades and becomes less safe and less operationally sound.
In short, the RRW is the equivalent of taking all your old VCR tapes of family events and transferring them to DVDs to preserve quality, ease of use, and longevity. This is a no-brainer in terms of national security spending.
But when Obama's opposition is combined with this nutty call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons, then I get really nervous, because everything we do to shrink the "unthinkable" gap between ourselves and the rest of the world will only encourage the rest of the world to close it further. It will not aid in non-proliferation whatsoever, either. Dozens of countries have nuclear capacity but refuse to exploit the weaponization alternative because it provides them nothing in terms of additional security. But once you lower the threshold for great-power war by pursuing the zero option, that will logically change with great speed.
Let me be absolutely clear on this: pursuing the zero option is likely to increase proliferation among those already with nuclear capacity. The reason why they don't now seek that weaponization path is that the gulf between them and truly acknowledged nuclear-weapons states is vast and hugely expensive to overcome. And why bother doing it unless they face the distinct possibility of attack from a nuclear great power?
Given all of Obama's solid calls on foreign affairs and national security, this is a stunning boner--a real clanker that makes the Dems seem foolishly out of touch on hardcore national security issues.
It is Clinton's gays-in-the-military times ten.
Reader Comments (18)
That being said having the nuclear deterrent in place in the mean time makes sense, and that means it being reliable and modern or else it's no deterrent at all.
My father used to tell me "Do what I say, not what I do". I used to hate that - and I still do. We need to lead with our actions. I am not an Obama fan, but I will back him on this one.
It is not clear in any way that we are deterring "proliferation" by holding a big lead in arsenal. In fact, every country can see the different ways we dealt with North Korea and Iraq and conclude that having nuclear weapons is a strategic advantage. So it is not proliferation that we are dampening - but only usage. Maybe.
I opt for the moral highground on this one.
A military mindset is like a business mindset. General Motors builds cars, the Military fights wars. Organizations, by their nature, “do what they do”. I propose that we always lead with Diplomacy in concert with Commerce with the military as the last tool of choice (or, as a sign of failure). Just look at the current DoD budget discussions for an example.
This is a one hundred year problem. If we keep talking in terms of ten year solutions, your prophecy of never getting rid of nukes will certainly fulfill itself. That's where the folks in the Middle East and Far East have an advantage over us. They always take the long view spanning generations with their goals. We, by our nature, do not. That's a pity.
Don't give in to the temptation to restart your column - at least with the blog, there's no pressure of deadlines!
Hundreds of thousands of rotting corpses at Verdun and the Somme PROVE this is dangerously and foolishly wrong. Europe before World War I was very tightly bound economically, in some ways more so than now. Labor and capital were much more mobile. There were not even passports, except in backward Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Everyone was on the gold standard. The British foreign minister's eye doctor was in Berlin, one of those odd but compelling facts. Everyone who paid attention said, war is impossible because it will ruin the European economy and the world economy and no one will win enough to make it worth it.
They went to war anyway.
The state was born in war and its life is war and it will make war if it can.
Only certain destruction will prevent large scale war.
The only thing that prevents great power war is nuclear weapons.
Nothing else does, will, or can.
Get rid of them, and we will return to large-scale, seven-figure inter-state warfare, except with much more destructive weapons.
There is zero reason to think otherwise.
The only reason the Europeans have the luxury of not using force is because they are secured by American nuclear weapons.
Most people live in a childish fantasy world about the most basic foundations of the contemporary world.
Here's the bumper sticker: NUKES = PEACE
The regrettable corollary: nothing else does, nothing else will, nothing else can.
If Obama is one of the people who has sentimental ideas on this fundamental, life or death question -- and he shows worrying signs that he may be -- then God help us.
Those who live in the past tend to repeat it.
further, the axiom is more often stated as 'those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it' and history, as Tom continues to write, is clear on nukes.
many of us agree with Tom and Lex on this. are we all historical relics?
Lots of materials available on nuclear mechanics from the Federation of American Scientists. Or you could just get a degree in physics.
End geek transmission.
I certainly respect your point of view and believe that you respect mine. The “Truth” (sometimes, actually the compromise) tends to always lie somewhere in the middle. People who never venture to the middle ground have little chance of finding the “Truth” (and, frankly IMHO, should never enter public service since progress is based on compromise and new ideas). I am guessing that in reality you are among those who are at least open to alternative points of view. Lex… I’m thinking… not so much. Perhaps use of terms such as, “…childish fantasy world…” and “… sentimental ideas…” caused me to erroneously think that your friend Lex might not really be interested in discussing the issue with a goal towards perhaps learning something new. Of course, I’m assuming Lex has also seen the “rotting courses” he talks about and engaged in at least one or more of the “wars” he refers to it so casually. Perhaps having actually visited the only two places where Atomic Bombs were actually used also colors my point of view… but he’s probably been there also.
There's a lot we do agree on (or I wouldn't watch this board, buy Tom's books and quote his work frequently); however, many of us don't agree with you and Tom and Lex on this issue. I guess President Obama and I and a few others are on the "other side."
The actual quote is, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is generally attributed to George Satayana, a 19th century Spanish philosopher. I’m but one of many who paraphrase his work to suit my purposes.
I hope we have the opportunity to discuss this over a drink some day. Let me know when you next venture to Northern Virginia.
wish i got up to NoVA ever; would love to take you up on that drink!
note to all: let's keep it civil.
Al, that is the beginning of wisdom.
I am not a particularly nice person when it comes to anyone or anything I think is or might be a threat to my country.
Many, many people all over the world think this way, or worse, about real, potential, or imaginary threats to their communities, their Umma, what have you.
The past is the only source of political and military lessons we have.
Don't live in it: Mine it, study it, take it seriously, face the fact that it is often tragic in the strictest sense: Basically good people end up doing devastating things.
Trying to abolish the one thing that prevents my children from dying in the mud of another Kursk or Verdun is something that makes me speak intemperately, maybe, but not inaccurately.