Post-Nuclear Conflict

J. Peter Scoblic has a good read in the LAT from Sunday. His central argument is that hawks should embrace the idea of disarmament because it would pave the way for America's vastly superior conventional forces to be in control of global strategic affairs whereas even a few nuclear weapons would allow rogue-esque regimes to deter the United States. His argument is an interesting one to try to get conservative support for abolition. Three related comments to some of the discussion he raises:

1. The conventional military balance issue does not receive enough attention in disarmament discussions. Most are quick to concede abolition faces a number of daunting obstacles including major issues like verification. That said, one of the biggest may be convincing nuclear weapons states that a world without nuclear weapons enhances their security given U.S. conventional superiority. The Russians are well aware of some of the major challenges facing their military hence their reliance on nuclear weapons in their doctrine. People love to quip that the tables have turned and Russia now feels like the U.S./NATO did during the Cold War which is an interesting comparison to think through but proves how difficult it will be to get them to give up their nukes. Same with the Chinese. Even within the P3 there is a country who is openly unabashed about the desire to keep nuclear weapons given (at least in part) their modest defense capabilities when they lose their nuclear trump card. It is also important to consider the public relations aspect of discussion post-nuclear weapons strategy discussions. When Scoblic says,

That is a remarkable waste of America's incredible conventional superiority. Our fleet of stealth fighters and bombers can establish air dominance in virtually any scenario, allowing us to obliterate an adversary's military infrastructure at will. At sea, our fleet is larger than the next 17 navies combined and includes 11 carrier battle groups that can project power around the globe. (By contrast, few of our potential adversaries field even a single carrier.) All in all, the U.S. accounts for just shy of half the world's defense spending, more than the next 45 nations combined. That's six times more than China, 10 times more than Russia and nearly 100 times more than Iran.

those in favor of disarmament need to ensure that it does not become a poster child for countries to use as a reason (or excuse) for dragging their feet on nonproliferation commitments.

2. Citing history in pre vs. post nuclear debates is both a tough business and ripe for some new analysis. There's no doubt history can have value in trying to understand and perhaps predict events. That said, the way it plays out in nuclear debates is generally uninspiring. Those on the right will say "I don't want to go back to pre-1945 Europe" and those on the left will cite examples similar to those used by Scoblic to highlight the limited utility of nuclear weapons. 2 things to keep in mind: (a) there will be some very important differences between a post-abolition world and pre-WWII Europe. Thinking through the impact of technology, changes in governance, etc., particularly in some of the changes that would have to happen to get to 0, can help shed some light on differences and similarities to help determine how valuable the comparison may be. (b) there always needs to be a huge asterisk placed on discussions about what nuclear weapons have/have not deterred. It is impossible to determine complete causality from nuclear weapons successfully or unsuccessfully preventing conflict.