Global zerosumness

Ken Alterman published a piece on Foreign Policy arguing against the “Zero Nukes” vision, as he calls it.  The piece is a bit catty (e.g., “If you’re spending time and effort on a goal as lofty as no-nukes, why not go full blast and spend your time and effort on no-war? Peace on Earth, everywhere, forevermore.”) but there is one statement in particular that should be discussed:

Scores of tangible steps are necessary to make our nuclear world much safer. Allocating time and effort to “no-nukes” slogans takes limited energies away from such real needs.

The argument that the focusing on the distant, perhaps infeasible vision of a world without nuclear weapons trades off with short-term, pragmatic steps that can be taken to reduce nuclear dangers is an important one.  If correct, it is a very strong argument against placing muscle behind the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.  That said, this argument merits a deeper consideration of what actions in the “Zero Nukes” vision can help pragmatically reduce immediate nuclear dangers and which can be considered unproductive dreaming.  For example, hypothetically the U.S. call for a world without nukes can increase the credibility of the NPT which could help stop Iran, an urgent threat cited in the article (skepticism of credibility has been discussed elsewhere but nonetheless a valuable example to consider).  Just because an action could fall within the scope of the “Zero Nukes” vision does mean that it automatically trades off with addressing short-term dangers.  That said, Alterman’s point is one that does need to be considered, particularly in the current financially constrained atmosphere.  The United States needs to effectively state nuclear priorities from high-level leadership so as to properly allocate resources in the manner that best reduces nuclear dangers, both short and long term. Factors such as the relative cost vis-a-vis risk reduced need to be assessed.  Obama’s Prague plate is a large one and so determining in what order and with what emphasis priorities are dealt with will be critical.