Reaffirming the Utility of Nuclear Weapons

Abstract

A defining aspect of the present period in international politics is the lack of attention paid to nuclear weapons by United States' policymakers. To the extent these weapons are addressed, it is to consider significant reductions in the size of the US nuclear arsenal, to perhaps as few as 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, to advance the administration's nuclear disarmament goal. This push for reductions is part of a broader call for major reductions by organizations such as Global Zero. (1) We argue that such reductions are strategically risky, signal weakness, and invite challenges from US foes and worry among US allies. The time has come to state plainly--nuclear disarmament is an unpleasant dream that would jeopardize US security, make the world safe for conventional war, and undermine global stability. Further reductions in America's nuclear arsenal have the potential to embolden aggression against the interests of the United States and its allies, as well as to encourage proliferation. The United States' strategic amnesia about the important role of nuclear weapons in international politics is unique to Washington--it is clearly not shared by the leadership in Iran, Russia, or China. Moreover, it stands in stark contrast to the Cold War period where nuclear deterrence and the nuclear arsenal served as the strategic lodestar for the national security policies of the United States. Long forgotten are the days when American statesmen understood that, in order to advance its interests and deter aggression, Washington needed a credible, flexible, and responsive nuclear arsenal. Given their disappearance from national security debates, one could be forgiven for thinking nuclear weapons have no strategic value for the United States, and can be eliminated as the administration desires without cost or penalty. Only in the United States are nuclear weapons seen as passe, associated with the tools of the Cold War. Other nuclear and near-nuclear states see them as very useful tools of statecraft, today just as in the past. This neglect of the US nuclear enterprise has been comprehensive, cumulative, and caused some novel problems: the aging of the nuclear force structure, the dead-end career paths for Air Force and Navy officers, the lack of attention paid to deterrence theory and its complexities by think tanks and academics, the retirement of much of the workforce, and with it the loss of knowledge and experience. The United States has not addressed these problems with the force and urgency they require. The failure to solve these problems has been bipartisan, with both Congress and the White House sharing the blame. This article explains why nuclear weapons matter for the United States. To accomplish this, we explain the traditional roles of nuclear weapons for US foreign and defense policies--deterrence and coercion--and explain why these roles remain relevant. Why Nuclear Weapons Matter for the United States Nuclear weapons matter for purposes of deterrence and coercion--two of the major tools in the toolbox of the United States to advance and protect its interests in international politics. For deterrence purposes, nuclear weapons matter for five reasons. The first of these is deterrence of a nuclear attack on the US homeland. Nuclear weapons make the costs of such an attack prohibitive due to the consequences of nuclear retaliation. As in the Cold War, the United States is a target, and, just as then, it has enemies who wish its destruction. Nuclear weapons deter enemies such as al Qaeda who would deliberately attack the United States as well as countries like China that might be tempted to attack the US homeland as the result of escalation from a crisis (e.g., Taiwan in 1995-96). Second, nuclear weapons--both strategic and tactical--allow the United States to extend deterrence credibly, effectively, and relatively inexpensively to its allies. …