On Monday and Tuesday, Washington, DC, hosted 47 countries for a nuclear summit with the goal of eliminating, or at least greatly reducing, the chance that terrorist organizations could obtain a nuclear weapon. At the end of the summit, President Obama can claim two major accomplishments: the meeting forced countries that had failed to clean up their nuclear surpluses to formulate detailed plans to deal with them, and it kicked into action nations that had failed to move on previous commitments. Not exactly a red banner day, but progress nonetheless.
But the real news on the topic this month is the release last Tuesday, April 6, of the Obama administration’s nuclear doctrine. For the first time, U.S. policy is rejecting nuclear force against non-nuclear nations. That is, if we are attacked by a country (by conventional means, biological weapons, or what have you) that does not have atomic weapons, we will not use them in response. This is a break from the Bush-era policy that did threaten nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.
Obama’s policy, however, does come with a key condition. The promise will be upheld only for those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea, of course, have refused to sign it.
Congress requires each presidential administration to submit a Nuclear Posture Review, as the policy document is known, and Obama’s had been highly anticipated after he ran a campaign on reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the world and then won a Nobel Peace Prize in part for his idealist dream of a nuclear-free world.
The new policy has met with its detractors, of course. Sarah Palin likened it to a kid on the playground who says “punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate.” Except that it’s more like saying, “punch me in the face and I’m not going to fire bullets at your face, throat, heart, and stomach with a sawed-off shotgun from close range.” But thank you for your input, Mrs. Palin.
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, though, is also in total disagreement with the strategy:
The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.
This is deeply worrying to many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture—and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection—what are they to think?
Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?
This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downgrading our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation. (Full article here)
What do you think of Krauthammer’s position? Personally, I think it’s pretty bogus. It’s not as if the United States is ever going to completely eliminate its stock of atomic weapons, whatever pipe dreams Obama has. This country invented nukes, and we can’t take it back. And for all those smaller countries that depend on “the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked,” I think they would prefer a world with fewer nuclear powers and less possibility that weapons-grade plutonium will fall into the wrong hands.
In September of last year, Newsweek’s Jonathan Tepperman made the argument that the world would be a safer place if all countries have nuclear weapons. In the article “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” Tepperman explains:
The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there’s never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. … Nuclear weapons [make] the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable. Suddenly, when both sides have the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a button—and everybody knows it—the basic math shifts. Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. (Full article here)
I agree with Tepperman that the heads of governments are not likely to wage a nuclear war with another nuclear state or state that is closely allied with a nuclear power. But that’s not really the problem anymore. As this week’s nuclear summit stressed, the greater danger is weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium falling into the hands of terrorist organizations who aren’t afraid of retaliation (because, after all, you can’t strike back against an anonymous attacker). And besides, the culture of many of today’s most-feared terrorist groups is to strike at all costs, and as we’ve learned, you can’t hold suicide bombers responsible for their crime. Hyper-proliferation, especially in nations that are not as strict in protecting their nuclear materials, only increases the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack.
So with all this chatter about nuclear weapons, the sanctions against Iran for trying to build one, continued efforts to convince North Korea to give theirs up, the way South Africa was pressured into eliminating theirs… I constantly ask myself: who is the United States (or Russia, or France, or China) to tell another sovereign nation what level of defense they are allowed to pursue? Sure, there are a lot of countries out there that are unstable or that have vastly differing views than the United States (and that, don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily want to have nuclear capabilities), but under what philosophical argument is it fair to deny them the right to defend themselves against the biggest threat of all?
We use sanctions and embargos and international agreements to try to deter Iran and North Korea, but we seem perfectly fine with the fact that Israel has obtained nuclear weapons. (Hell, we most likely gave them to Israel, but that is another blog.) We didn’t exactly risk going to war when India obtained them, either. Developing nuclear capabilities is a way for smaller, less wealthy nations to get a seat at the table with the superpowers. It’s leverage, and if I were a citizen of one of those countries, I would probably want my country to be a nuclear power too. And my guess is that if you put yourself in their shoes, you would agree. It’s incredibly hypocritical of nuclear nations to use their power so broadly and then expect other nations not to want that same power. Give me a break.
I could go on, but I think enough issues have been raised for one blog. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Krauthammer’s stance that the new U.S. policy of not attacking non-nuclear countries will only encourage proliferation? What do you think about Tepperman’s position that proliferation is good for peace? If you lived in a country like Brazil or Finland or Sudan, would you want your nation to have nuclear capabilities? Please, share any and all opinions!
So youre talking about escalation, and I believe nuclear escalation has been proven to be true. You make a good point about why smaller countries would want to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities. I think its great that the president has taken steps to stop terrorists getting nukes, a terrorist setting off a nuclear strike in the US is my worst nightmare. You are probably right about the US’s hubris in not wanting other nations to get nukes, but on the other hand a nuclear weapon in the hands of a despot or tyrant is a threat to the whole world and generations of the human race are at stake. the nations on the security council have certain precautions and security details on their nukes and nuke programs. Would a Belize or Serbia be able to handle these kinds of issues and if they could not some unsavory character may get a nuke and use it in a bad way. Which I think was the point of the summit countries need to take better care of their nukes. i think a world with less nukes is a better world, and if we can find some way to stop escalation, the world will be a better place.
It is a rare day when I agree with Charles Krauthammer. What President Obama is attempting to do should make the world safer for generations to come. We can all pray that that is the case. Oh, and, by the way, Sarah, there are myriad ways of dealing with bullies that have nothing to do with violence. Maybe you should try some of them sometime. But then, you couldn’t do your macho, gun-toting thing–all while winking provocatively–could you?
It is an extremely rare instance when I agree war is the answer for solving a problem. So, I do not agree with any decision to use nuclear weapons past, present, or future.
However, I think one of the largest problem with nuclear technology and its proliferation is the fact that most the world’s human inhabitants are going to be forced to use some form of nuclear power source at some point in the not too distant future. Therefore, taking that technology away from any country will be unjust and would also harm the environment. Scientists in countries like the U.S. and France are working on nuclear power sources that are more difficult to turn into weapons but no nuclear source is completely stable and all can be used to create weapons. Nuclear power is one of the most clean and renewable energy sources we have on this planet but it also has the potential to be the most risky. I believe in using it more than coal-burning power plants, at least in theory, but I am also hoping science can progress further and make it a safer energy source.
We can’t take away someone’s right to defend themselves. If people (at least in the US) have the right to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into their home with no consequences under the sheer defense that they are defending their home, then how can we take away some countries right to defend themselves against nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons? Seems unjust for me.
Ideally, at least in my opinion, no one would use these type of weapons. I don’t know much, but who developed these weapons first? In most cases, countries just want to defend themselves against the US. Why? Because the US believes they have a superior right to exert their power and control over other countries, when in fact, they don’t want us there. And, I would imagine it crosses over to other countries as well. I don’t believe any country wants to use nuclear weapons, but when another country threatens it, what choice do countries have but to develop similar technologies and defend themselves? None, in my opinion. These smaller countries, I believe, don’t want to use them, but don’t want to be obliterated because of them. The only way for them to survive is to have comparable technologies.
I guess, at the end of the day, I think countries should help those that want it, attempt to change countries with detrimental policies, but leave those alone that are just doing things differently. There is no right or wrong. If we could do that, and learn to live harmoniously, accepting of opinions and beliefs that differ from our own, I don’t think there would be a dire need for nuclear weapons. All countries and their citizens just want to live their lives at peace and happy. And, nuclear weapons don’t have to be a part of that. But, when attacked with that type of weapon, a country should most certainly have a right to retaliate against it. At what end, though? At some point, we need to band together for the betterment of Earth and figure out a better solution than eye for an eye.