Last week the Obama Administration released its new Nuclear Posture Review, which sets forth when and why the United States will use nuclear weapons. There has been a wide range of comments on the new policy. Some, including apparently the President himself (in an interview with The New York Times), say it is a "sharp shift" from his predecessors’ policies. Others think the differences are modest. Of course, we will not know for sure whether the changes are major or minor until a situation develops where nuclear weapons would have been used under the policies of one of President Obama’s predecessors and we then see what President Obama does. In other words, we hope we never find out.
With that in mind, I would like to comment on several aspects of the new policy. First, under the policy, the U.S. "is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons". President Obama said that such threats could be deterred with current and new conventional weapons. I trust this is a commitment by the President to continue funding the Defense Department, and especially the research and development of new weapons, at current levels, if not more. If we are going to rely on conventional weapons, we have to have them.
Second, media reports about the new policy said the proviso about being "in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty" ("NPT") was aimed at North Korea and Iran. But Iran claims it is in compliance with the NPT. So who gets to decide? Does the United States get to decide by ourselves or will we defer to, or at least consult with, the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency? If we decide by ourselves, isn’t that the kind of unilateral actions that was such a big problem for then-Senator Obama during the Bush administration?
But beyond that, in his interview with The New York Times, the President said, "[R]ather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability." I am sorry, but that is not true. For heaven’s sake, at times the United States government has not been able to agree among itself as to whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons. In December of 2007, at the very time the Bush administration was trying to get other countries to help stop Iran’s nuclear program, the CIA issued a report saying that Iran had stopped work on developing nuclear weapons in 2003. The report was balderdash, but it undercut the Bush administration’s efforts at the time. And it still hasn’t been officially revoked even though the Obama administration is proceeding on the basis it is not true. (Here and here.)
Third, I was disappointed that the Administration decided not to develop new nuclear warheads to replace old ones that could soon become obsolete or just worn out and unreliable. The Administration is increasing spending to update the old warheads, but I worry whether that is enough. The Administration has decided to not develop new warheads because it apparently thinks that, if the United States develops new warheads (to replace our old ones), other countries will want to develop nuclear weapons of their own. I don’t understand that theory. What keeps many countries from developing their own nuclear weapons is that we protect them with our nuclear umbrella. But for the umbrella to work, it has to be credible, which means our weapons have to be reliable. At some point, our promise of protection will not be credible because our old warheads will not be reliable. We need to begin developing replacement warheads now.
Fourth, the Administration also seems to think that our new policy of not using nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons and are in compliance with the NPT will encourage countries to not develop nuclear weapons and to stay in compliance with the NPT. Naïve and "hopelessly idealistic" are the nicest things that can be said about this theory. According to The Wall Street Journal:
"In his Times interview, the President also mentioned the example of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, who ‘was pursuing nuclear weapons for quite some time until suddenly [he] decided the costs outweighed the benefit.’"*
The Journal noted that Gadhafi’s decision came a week after Saddam Hussein was captured by the 4th Infantry Division. I think the situation is more complex than that, as I discussed here. I hope the President understands that Gadhafi decided as he did because he had nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them. Neither Iran nor North Korea is making that mistake, and the missile tests both of them are conducting show that they are not planning on winding up in the same situation that Gadhafi found himself in.
--------------
* "Dreams of Disarmament," The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2010.
Comments