Holding fire for next week's column on the new nuclear posture review

ARTICLE: "Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms," by David E. Sanger and Peter Baker, New York Times, 5 April 2010.

I think this is such a bad idea that [INSERT CANDIDATE HERE] is now my preferred choice for the presidency in 2012. The hubris on this one is beyond belief.

This is my gut reaction (subject to review upon reading the doc and seeing what other people say): Obama is offering a preemptive solution to a problem nobody on this planet worries about. Worse, NO ONE gets nukes out of the fear of America possibly using them, so it DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION! Indeed, it arguably makes the pursuit that much more rewarding to the country undertaking the effort. The exception argument offered on NorKo and Iran just admits as much.

This is strategically stupid with a capital DUH!

Believe me, I am just getting warmed up.

Comments

[Mark]

Knew this was coming!

I think this will be Dr. B at his finest.

Looking forward to the article.

[Greg R. Lawson]

I agree completely with you this.

This will do nada for non-proliferation and may actually provide more incentivizes than there already are for the development of WMD (not only nuclear) technology in order to further hedge against American conventional military superiority. It also avoids dealing with the fact that since the advent of nuclear weapons there has been no world war.

I think the entire non-proliferation regime is dead and that this smacks of desperation on the part of a President who knows the truth, but has to preen about acting like he is an idealist.

Better to re-engage seriously with deterrence, tailored to the new global circumstances than prattle on senselessly about "Global Zero."

[Robert Henig]

Tom,I worked on Obama's campaign and am a big supporter of the administration, but I do have my concerns about this trajectory. Thus far, Obama's 'long game' strategic approach has been yielding some fruit, but this issue REALLY, REALLY needs to be aired out in full for the sake of all humanity. Even us Obama supporters can't just hold out hope that his 3D chess skills will assure a safe and lasting peace on earth. The benefits and trade-offs need to be fully comprehended, not by DC gossip hounds, but by a sufficient number of Americans and our allies.

You obviously are locked in on this. Good. Leave it all on the field.

[Richard Heyne]

I have followed your 1st rate strategic analysis for some time and consider you one of the best thinkers in that area. I have also noted your recent praise for Obama in some policy decisions, but suspect that we may see a change of heart. We await your comments on this fiasco. In the meantime, I am renting a copy of "Seven Days in May" to set the mood. R. Heyne

[Rob]

If you want to appeal to the lowest common denominator/ voter, invent a crisis, change the page and "Get a win!. I see this simplistic tactic all over the globe with 3rd world failure leaders. No, I am not calling him a dictator -just noticing a similarity.

In terms of saving the world from nukes, like the Dali Lama said "Always help if you can, but please dont make things worse!".

Feels like he is preparing a battlefield for a "retreat with honor."

[Will]

So President Palin is OK by you?

[PenGun]

You miss the point. This is really to make it much more difficult for Israel to use low yield weapons on Iran's reactors.

Preemptive action to forestall those crazy Jews.

[Tom Barnett]

Sorry PenGun, but if that is the rationale, then the gesture is completely useless. But I don't think influencing Israel has anything to do with the NPR, according to anybody I speak with.

America will not change the fundamental rule set on nukes for anybody by doing this but itself. Israel doesn't check our latest policy on such decisions, and never has.

This, unlike education or healthcare, is Obama trying to fix something that's completely unbroken and has served the world eminently well for 65 years and counting.

To me, this is his arrogance shining through more than anything else; Obama thinks he can rise above the nuclear equation--which is a stunning hubris, in my mind.

[Mark]

I'm relatively uninformed on this subject, but I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) there is in fact a purpose for this otherwise confusing move. Here's one possibility that came to mind:

This policy would allow our arsenal to retain the core capability of acting as a deterrent against a conventional nuclear attack. Whether nuclear or conventional, our military force should by rational standards be enough to deter DPRK, Iran and the like from any less-than-nuclear attack. If this is the case, could this policy be a way for the US to bolster its ability/credibility to take an aggressive stance with non-compliant states/rogue non-state actors? "Look, we're serious about non-proliferation...If we're this serious with regard to our own nuclear capability, you should take us seriously with regard to your nuclear capability."

If he is indeed trying to shrink the nuclear threat, shouldn't his policy for addressing stable nuclear powers should support his policy for less stable nuclear states/potential non-state threat? It may not directly prevent proliferation, but maybe it pushes the ball forward on dealing with the real nuclear threat.

I'll say however, 30 meetings of the NSC might be a bit disproportional with regards to our other current problems.

[Rocco Bamba]

Well I, for one, think it's about time we stopped lobbing atom bombs all over the place every time somebody ticks us off...

[Andrew in DC]

I read that yesterday, too -- and had about the same reaction as in your graphic.

Can't wait to see your full article on it.