PONI Debates the Issues: Nuclear Reduction Recap

By Chris Jones

Last night, PONI hosted the sixth installment of its “PONI Live Debates” series. The debated featured Baker Spring from the Heritage Foundation and John Isaacs from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The topic for the debate was as follows:

Further reductions in the nuclear arsenal are in the national security interest of the United States.

Isaacs provided the opening statement taking the affirmative side of the argument. His speech focused on the strong bipartisan consensus favoring reductions in the arsenal including names like Schlesinger, Payne, Woolsey, and Ikle. Furthermore, he argued that the ongoing START treaty provides a valuable limit on arsenals which is preferable to the alternatives of no treaty or a weak SORT treaty. Lastly, he emphasized the world has changed and nuclear reductions are important to help reduce the risk of a proliferation “tipping point” and the prospect of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Spring’s opening statement took a far different approach. While he was not opposed to certain reductions depending on the time and circumstance, he made clear that time is not now. Nuclear weapons continue to play an important role, particularly in crises stability situations that will only become more difficult in an increasingly complex world of nuclear multipolarity. Spring relied heavily on the following chart:

Spring argued that there are 3 primary lines. The top line is a Cold War massive retaliation strategy reminiscent of Schelling that no longer proves adequate for the deterrence needs of the 21st century. The second line represents a disarmament focused strategy that ultimately proved to be unstable during war games. The third line represents the optimal “protect and defend” strategy the relies on a mix of offensive and defense options that are sufficient so as to allow for reductions in the nuclear arsenals. Spring worried that we have quickly chosen on arms control as a strategy without doing the spade work necessary to rigorously analyze the conditions under which these reductions can be made.

Cross-examination of the negative focused on what the alternative should be to START, particularly given its December expiration, and why the current numbers being looked at in the new START negotiations should be considered problematic. Spring answered that the Moscow treaty has not expired and that there could be ways to add verification measures. With regards to the numbers, Spring was skeptical of current reductions, particularly on the delivery vehicles, given some of the policies the administration has announced at Prague.

Cross-examination of the affirmative focused largely on the role of nuclear weapons. Spring asked whether nuclear weapons have a political and military value and argued that Isaac’s response that they are to deter a nuclear attack on the United States is a “transparent bluff.” The cross-examination also explored the arbitrary nature of determining what number of nuclear weapons is sufficient but Isaacs noted the ranges chosen for the START agreement occurred in tandem with the work done for the NPR.

To check out the full debate, including the Q&A and concluding statements, check the event page (audio is currently up, video will be soon)

Also, check out the Council for a Livable World's description here.