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?

Russia Calls For "New Security Norms"

Apparently:

"The existing international security system has failed in a crisis situation, which is confirmed by developments in both Iraq and Kosovo, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told a new conference after a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Moscow."

Hmm, he may have a point.

"He noted that unipolarity or domination were no longer acceptable principles on the political arena, as even the largest states as the USA could not lay down the rules for the entire global community. To do it should be up to special institutions such as the UN and regional organizations."

OK. Except what Medvedev "proposing" is actually the UN Charter regime, which has been around for sixty years...

Friday Star Trek Blogging.

The newly launched World Security Forum, with its focus on, among other things, "the growing evidence of the ramifications of epidemics," would be wise to take heed of Seven's advice.

Climate Security 101

Considering the US Senate is deliberating at present over a "Climate Security Act" that would place limitations on US greenhouse gas emissions, I thought it would be useful to pass along the following: individual citizens can now track their contributions to climate security at the following website: Creative Citizen.com. My neighbors have often said they'd like to be greener if only there were an alogrithm to tell them how... well this isn't exactly that, but check it out anyhoo.

Well, Damn My Blood!

From the AP:

"Pirates seized control of a French cruise ship Friday off the coast of Somalia, France's Foreign Ministry said.

A ministry official said details about the attack were scarce, and it was not clear how many crew members were on board the ship or if there were any passengers.

The ship is in the high seas in the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean.

Pirates seized more than two dozen ships off the Somali coast last year.

The U.S. Navy has led international patrols to try to combat piracy in the region. Last year, the guided missile destroyer USS Porter opened fire to destroy pirate skiffs tied to a Japanese tanker.

Wracked by more than a decade of violence and anarchy, Somalia does not have its own navy and a transitional government formed in 2004 with U.N. help has struggled to assert control.

The International Maritime Bureau, which tracks piracy, said in its annual report earlier this year that global pirate attacks rose by 10 percent in 2007, marking the first increase in three years.

Those interested in understanding the global resurgence in piracy and efforts to combat it should read this blog from time to time.

Ha! The Bushies Are Listening

Recently I blogged about the USG's concern over state secrets escaping our territorial borders through the untimely demise of a US spy satellite due to crash-land somewhere on the terrestrial surface in March.

I made the case that one might be as concerned with human life as with the security of our satellite technology.

Seems the Bushies have paid heed to this dose of wisdom. They've decided to shoot down the satellite and justify it by citing the risk to human populations if it should hit land:

"They say the satellite contains a hazardous material which could be fatal if inhaled by humans.

A US general denied claims that the main aim was to destroy secret parts."

In fact, they're bending over backward it seems to claim that destorying satellite secrets has nothing to do with the decision to pull the trigger.

"General James Cartwright said confidential components would be burned up in the atmosphere and, in any case, that would not be a reason for shooting down the satellite."

Of course it's rubbish, but the fact that they feel they must claim it is says a lot about how "human security" is displacing "national security" in "security-speak." It's a good sign - norm change always does begin with hypocrisy. Anyways, it's nice to know the Bushies are paying attention.

New Tool for Threat-Downs

Now here is something very interesting.



I am always intrigued to see what counts as a "global incident." The threats here seem primarily threats to the state. I'd like to see one with some generic human security measures - areas of low-level repression, civil wars, massacres, disappearances. It would be fascinating, for example, to have someone tracking the intensity of the violence in Kenya using such a tool.

The authors are developing similar maps for things like pandemic outbreaks and "USA school incidents." Hmm.

Satellite Security v. Human Security

A while back I blogged about the concept of "human security." But not expansively. My students sometimes get a little confused about this term, it meaning so many different things to different people. And Roland Paris up at University of Ottawa has argued famously that the concept represents more hot air than a genuine paradigm shift in strategic thinking.

So here's a story that both illustrates the concept of human security and lends credence to Paris' argument. It seems a US spy satellite is dropping out of orbit and will likely hit ground somewhere in North America in the next few weeks. Big issue for the US military, it seems.


A human security frame, which privileges protecting individuals from threats to their security, would probably encourage consideration of the populated areas that could be affected. Instead, according to the London Register, experts at the defense thinktank Global Security is primarily concerned with the risks to "the secrets of the satellite":

"One concern the intelligence community is going to have is that parts of this satellite will fall into the hands of the Russians or Chinese or somebody else," says Global Security director John Pike.

According to Pike, the satellite carries a new generation of spy equipment, able to provide round-the-clock intelligence.

"The hopes were that this was going to be a more capable, less expensive spy satellite or radar satellite that could see objects through clouds and in the dark."

Oh yes, that would have been just fine.