Sorting out the reductions debate

Adam Lowther published an op-ed in the Boston Globe today that sets out to debunk some of the common arguments made in favor of the abolition of nuclear weapons.  True to the nature of debate, a format highly supported by this blog, the article outlines a series of arguments and then provides a response to each. PDI has taken it a step further and placed the pro-abolition and response together and then provided some commentary on the issue:

Argument 1

Pro-abolition: American political leaders have failed to alter nuclear policy for the post-Cold War security environment. Response: First, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were responsible stewards of the nuclear arsenal, bringing the number down from a high of 24,000 to the current 5,400, which will continue to decline to between 2,200 and 1,700 to meet the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty requirements. Nuclear-capable bombers were also de-alerted more than a decade ago. Cutting the size of the nuclear arsenal 80 percent is a substantial shift in policy.

PDI Thoughts: While cutting the current arsenal 80 percent is certainly a substantial shift, the question hinges on a complete analysis of the current strategic environment. Within that environment, the task is to find the appropriate balance between having a credible deterrent while minimizing risks such as terrorist theft that clearly increase with the number of weapons in the world.  The question of past cuts, however, sort of skirts the issue.  The arsenals maintained by the United States and Soviet Union were so vast that substantial reductions were a warmup.  Now it's time for the Big Dance, in the spirit of March Madness.  Given that reductions discussions are now within a ballpark that could substantially alter geostrategic security calculations, hammering out specifics and getting agreements from Russia and others will be much more difficult.

Argument 2

Pro-abolition: Terrorism, not Russia, is the primary threat facing the United States. Nuclear weapons do not deter terrorists. Response: Second, terrorists do not threaten the sovereignty of the United States. Even if they carry out a successful attack, America will survive. Russia, however, continues to possess the capability to destroy the nation. Unilateral disarmament will not change that.

PDI Thoughts: Both arguments are true to a degree.  It is a question of probability versus consequences.  Many people think that terrorism is the most likely threat facing the United States in the short term but the thousands of nuclear weapons Russia possesses still represent an existential threat.  Unilateral disarmament is not the answer and is typically not advocated by pro-abolition folks, as noted in the comments to the article. That being said, there is likely a more optimal solution that is somewhere between zero and current levels that can work to maintain our existential deterrence vis-a-vis Russia while reducing the risk of nuclear theft.

Argument 3

Pro-abolition: America's advanced conventional capabilities can accomplish the same objectives once reserved for nuclear weapons. Response: Third, conventional capabilities will never effectively substitute for nuclear weapons. Yes, they can destroy the same target. But, they lack the same capacity to generate fear in the heart of an adversary. Fear acts to deter, which is why we possess nuclear weapons.

PDI Thoughts: This issue will received increased attention over the coming year as START extension/follow-on negotiations ramp up given the Russian complaints about how the counting will work.  This will also be an important issue for allies currently under the nuclear umbrella.  Does a "global strike umbrella" have the same ring and carry the same credibility?

Argument 4

Pro-abolition: As a signer of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the United States is required to move toward nuclear abolition. Response: Fourth, if the United States moves toward disarmament, it will be the only nuclear power to do so. Every other nuclear power is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Thus, the United States may soon reach a point where it can be held hostage by other states.

PDI Thoughts: Another case where both arguments have truth in them.  Article VI obviously calls for disarmament parties, including the United States.  The question is not whether the U.S. is required to do this under the NPT but rather whether that is a good idea.  "Modernization" is a word that has varying connotations to people but there are many who nonetheless feel the United States will have to take some sort of effort, whether LEP or SSP or RRW or a new approach, to ensure stockpile confidence.  This is particularly true should the U.S. want to go to significantly lower numbers.  "Modernization" does not have to be viewed as the creation of a new weapon or capability but rather could simply be creating technical surety to open up other policy options.

Argument 5

Pro-abolition: The threat of accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, and proliferation of nuclear weapons and material can only be overcome by total nuclear disarmament. Response: Fifth, in the 65-year history of the bomb there has never been an accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, or large-scale nuclear proliferation. History suggests the opposite. Nuclear weapons make those that possess them risk averse, not risk acceptant.

PDI Thoughts: This argument merits some consideration of phrasing.  Complete nuclear abolition would clearly resolve launch and material concerns but a couple of things to note.  First, the argument about the risk averse nature of nuclear countries likely does not apply to terrorist groups that would be able to acquire a nuclear weapon via the material that abolition seeks to abolish.  Second, the debate on this is oversimplified and glosses over many of the complexities behind the issue. "It hasn't happened yet" is not a super persuasive argument.  The discussion needs to analyze factors such as safeguards to prevent launch and the process for notifying launches that could be misinterpreted. This argument also holds true for the de-alerting debate.  A couple of very qualified nuclear experts discussed off the record at a PONI event the nonsensical nature of the "hair-trigger" concept and some of the procedures that would be required to actually launch a nuclear weapon.