Reconsidering Nuclear Policy

Writing in the Salt Lake Tribune today, two arms consultants ask some pointed questions:

For decades, nuclear weapons were thought to make us safer by deterring the first strike by another nation. Today we need to re-evaluate the roles and dangers of nuclear weapons in the world. Let's ask ourselves: Does it help the United States to have nuclear weapons? Would the whole world be safer if no one and no nation had even one of these weapons?

Well, isn't the follow up question: safer from what? Safer from nuclear holocaust, perhaps. Safer from conventional war with all its bloodiness? Hard to know, since the decline in inter-state war coincided not only with the nuclear era but also with the establishment of the UN Charter regime.

At any rate, strategies to escape from MAD are back on the foreign policy agenda. Writing in Foreign Affairs this issue, Ivo Daadler and Jan Lodal make a case for disarmament. Or so they say:

"The next President will have the opportunity to make the elimination of all nuclear weapons the organizing principle of US nuclear policy."

But actually the authors' proposals do not take the US very far in that direction. One - a better nuclear-control regime - makes sense but really is an extension of the non-proliferation treaty, not a pledge to disarm. Another - a pledge to use nuclear weapons only to deter attacks against allies - would only formalize US adherence to existing nuclear norms, while presumably keeping weapons on a hair-trigger alert and maintaining a policy based on a threat to commit a grossly unethical act - the incineration of foreign civilians as revenge for a similar attack against an ally. A reduction of US arsenals to a "mere" 1,000 weapons would be lovely, but how is that even close to approaching a world of "zero"? And if the US can't be expected to take this goal seriously, then how is Daadler and Lodal's proposal that that the US convince its allies of the "logic of zero" anything other than a recipe for hypocrisy?

The truth is, of course, that any steps toward disarmament will have to be baby steps. Even disarmament advocates like those writing for the Salt Lake Tribune can't seem to do any better than this modest proposal: increasing the amount of time required to make a nuclear launch decision.

More time would then be available to double check for possible computer malfunctions. We can also take physical steps to increase the time it takes for a weapon to be launched. For example, today's modern Minuteman missiles can be "safed" in their silos, much as the older Minuteman missiles were safed in late 1991 at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

What would it take for the US to simply disavow the use of nuclear weapons as inherently unethical and take the lead in nuclear disarmament?

Why Not Nuke 'Em All?

I wouldn't have thunk it. I've long been a fan of Nina Tannenwald's argument that a strong taboo exists against the use of nuclear weapons, even as countries scramble to acquire them for symbolic reasons. But according to Democracy Now: "Military Chiefs Assert First-Strike Nuclear Option for NATO":

"A group of former top military commanders in NATO countries including the U.S. are calling on their governments to insist on the right to pre-emptive nuclear attack. In a new manifesto, the former army leaders—including ex- joint chiefs of staff chair General John Shalikashvili —say NATO should maintain that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument.” The group says this is in part because there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” The proposal is likely to be reviewed at a NATO summit in April.

Evidence that the Bush Doctrine is actually contagious? This would represent an grim and dangerous weaking of the nuclear non-first-use norm. Important to watch and see what happens in April. And a good opportunity for global civil society to mobilize in opposition?

Meanwhile, FP's Passport Blog reports the following complaint by President Musharraf regarding the media framing of his country's nukes:

"We are a nuclear state, and it is just unfortunate that we are seen to be unstable; that our nuclear assets can fall into wrong hands, into the hands of the terrorists... this is an Islamic bomb that Pakistan has. I really don't understand why the world calls it an Islamic bomb, and why there is no Hindu bomb, or a Jew bomb, or a Christian bomb, or a Buddhist bomb. Why is this bomb an Islamic bomb? I don't understand. And the man on the street in Pakistan does not understand this.

He makes a good point, eh? Particularly since Pakistan is only a Muslim-majority country, not an "Islamic" theocracy. The correct corrolary being not "Christian" bomb to describe the US/UK arsenals but rather "Liberal Secular Godless Bomb."

Discuss.