In a pretty stark departure from President Bush's policies and plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons, Obama has canceled all plans for nuclear weapons development. This comes on the heels of the arms reduction treaty about to be signed with Russia.
In the new rules, older weapons would be given increased attention and upkeep so they'll last longer. The doctrine also includes guidelines for how nuclear weapons can be used, and who they can be used on. Obama intends for it to be an incentive to stay away from becoming a nuclear power. Basically he's saying "if you don't have nukes, you'll never be targeted with one," though I wonder how that'll honestly be interpreted by those seeking nuclear weapons. The past has shown that having nuclear weapons puts one in a much stronger negotiating position than merely trying to get them.
Either way, Obama just outlined a new US nuclear weapons doctrine for a new century.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, on one hand, its no 'no first use' and there's a bit of a loophole for Iran and North Korea which means that it is not quite "if you don't have nukes, you'll never be targeted with one" merely, "if you don't have nukes and also aren't seeking to get them, you'll never be targeted with one."
Thinking about it, that means there is pretty much no nation that is affected since most nations that the US is likely to come into conflict with are either nuclear powers (Russia, China) or seeking them (Iran, North Korea). The pledge wouldn't have barred a nuclear strike on Iraq either.
On the other hand, the concrete changes in cutting development and agreed reductions are still welcome.
Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :
Hopefully we can get things down to the point where we can only destroy the world 200 times over. Right now, it's... ten thousand? Am I right?
I don't really think that we're going to get away with another premeditated nuclear strike on another nation unless things have already gone to hell. Nuclear weapons are the cause of a problem but not a solution.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that any one President saying "This is now how we are going to deal with nuclear weapons." doesn't carry all that much weight. At best, it's like 7 years before someone else could come along and overturn that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The atomic bomb is obviously a weapon of terror. But its deterrent factor did prevent the Cold War from turning into WWIII. No atomic bomb has been used in warfare since Nagasaki in 1945. That makes 65 years now, and counting. Can the atomic bomb still remain a viable deterrent under the "Obama Doctrine"? I might have more hope if I felt that Obama were really on our side. I am not convinced that he is.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Uuummm, the Soviet could have overrun Western Europe in 1948/49 back when the atomic "deterrent" was basically non existent, Russia could withstand a few bombs easily as the US production line had been torn down and being retooled for more efficient production.
If the Soviets didn't attack then they weren't likely going to attack at anytime after that and thats with it widely believed that the mid-60's to the mid 70's where the Soviets were at the height of their threat and the US unlikely to intervene at the time widely believed had they rolled the dice then would have won.
Nuclear weapons are a paradox in a sense they are a deterrent against their very use, the proof of this is self evident considering the hundreds of billions spent on developing and maintaining large advanced conventional armies all in the expectation that a nuclear war would be avoided and stay conventional in scope.
Nuclear weapons are a costly prestige system that can only be used once any ABM system developed to counter them would only ensure nuclear war rather then avoid it.
And even if you assume that yes nuclear weapons prevent wars between the superpowers then why not take China's example? Hold only a minimal nuclear arsenal for the sole purpose of deterrence? You don't need 10,000 warheads to act as a deterrent you only need 10,000 to show you got a bigger penis then the other side.
China has roughly last I check 20 MIRV ICBM's capable of hitting any American city, 2-3 Nuclear Boomers a few hundred IRBMs and maybe a thousand or so 'tactical' warheads why should the US or Russia require thousands of ICBMs?
Maintaining such a system is ludicrously expensive and I suspect takes up far too much of the defense budget, cut it all down to the minimal number required to maintain a 24/7 deterrent modernize the remainder and get Russia on board so you keep a united political and diplomatic front.
This also begs the question then from you, who do we need the deterrent against? Russia is a responsible nation-state with half a century of responsible non-use, China has maintained a no first use policy and a minimal arsenal for its needs, UK and France are of course allies and ostensibly Israel, Pakistan and India are semi-friendly.
So who do we need thousands of nuclear weapons to deter against?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
We never have to use a nuclear weapon. But we leave the possibility on the table. It is fine if the President swears to himself to never use one. But we don't tell the world that. It is a deterrent. It is like carrying a gun with us into a convenient store, and then while an robbery is taking place telling the robber "I have a gun, but hey, I'm not going to use it no matter what you do. Can we talk instead?"
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm actually willing to trust Obama on this policy than some others. One of the things he was very interested in while Senator was working on nuclear proliferation treaties and the like.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We never have to use a nuclear weapon. But we leave the possibility on the table. It is fine if the President swears to himself to never use one. But we don't tell the world that. It is a deterrent. It is like carrying a gun with us into a convenient store, and then while an robbery is taking place telling the robber "I have a gun, but hey, I'm not going to use it no matter what you do. Can we talk instead?"
Geraine, Do you think that our military power outclassing any other 5 other countries' put together (excepting China, who as a nuclear power, this says that we might use nuclear weapons against them) is not enough of a deterrent?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The atomic bomb is obviously a weapon of terror. But its deterrent factor did prevent the Cold War from turning into WWIII. No atomic bomb has been used in warfare since Nagasaki in 1945. That makes 65 years now, and counting. Can the atomic bomb still remain a viable deterrent under the "Obama Doctrine"? I might have more hope if I felt that Obama were really on our side. I am not convinced that he is.
Annnnd, whose side is he on then?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Militarization has been at the helm of far too many wars in human history, I for one would rather that everyone backs off the nukes seeing as they could truely destroy the world. Really, the whole thing.
I wonder if the Japanese man who survived both nukes had anything to do with the decision? I remember he had sent a plea to Pres. Obama to do basically what he is doing now. If so, I am inclined to follow the advice of a man who lived through that horror twice.
@Lyrhawn Xenu's.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Edwins advice should have been take long ago.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There is a triadofarticles at Foreign Policy that throws a bit of cold water on the significance of the treaty. The first, by Peter Feaver who is a professor at GWU and former GWB advisor goes to some lengths to point out the lack of tangibles in the treaty. The meat of the treaty was evidently hashed out some time ago (primarily during Bush's second term), although the language has changed significantly. The other two articles, by David Hoffman from the WaPo, essentially say the same thing but from a different perspective: the language is laudable but don't bet on the treaty to be enforcable and even if it is, the actual agreement doesn't live up to the rhetoric.
Personally I see the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world as signficantly misguided. It seems inherently unstable. The current system provides a deterrent against entry into the field (a point made implicitly in Obama's refusal to extend first strike exemptions to countries abrogating the non-proliferation treaty; if we had no nukes, that deterrent wouldn't be possible). It also provides a deterrent to those actors with/seeking nuclear weapons who may be tempted to engage in a first strike (N. Korea, conceivably Pakistan under different leadership, Burma/Myanmar if the military junta has its way).
I guess it's just the "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns" argument writ large. While I'm not particularly sympathetic to that argument on a domestic level where crime can be effectively deterred by rule of law, I don't feel international institutions are remotely close to being able to provide adequate deterrence from bad actors on the world stage.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps he should have modified it to something like, "If you don't have weapons you will never be targeted with one, if you're trying to get one, kaboooom!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
While Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world might not be realizable for some time, but certainly a world with fewer nukes makes a lot of sense. Obama's main concern is that the more nuclear weapons, the greater the chance that one of them falls into the hands of a non-state actor.
While he might claim to want a nuclear free world, I think the realistic endgame here is a world where only those who currently have nuclear weapons will ever have them - in other words, the nuclear family remains static - and those already in the nuclear family have fewer weapons that they can keep better track of.
I think that makes perfect sense.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: It's not as big a deal as START and START I/II were but I still think it's a significant statement on the US's approach to nuclear weapons. I doubt any American president in the future will simply ignore it. That doesn't seem to be how these things are dealt with down the road.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We definitely don't need as many nukes. Personally, I like the neutron bomb.
I suppose Russia aiding Iran and Venezuela in building "peaceful nuclear power" was part of this peace deal. Iran and Venezuela do have a shortage of energy resources.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: While Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world might not be realizable for some time, but certainly a world with fewer nukes makes a lot of sense. Obama's main concern is that the more nuclear weapons, the greater the chance that one of them falls into the hands of a non-state actor.
I agree. But I don't think this is a significant divergence from any of the Presidents since at least Reagan. The reason Obama's NPR is generating buzz is part self-promotion, but primarily the change in language. And it's the language that is unrealistic.
quote:While he might claim to want a nuclear free world, I think the realistic endgame here is a world where only those who currently have nuclear weapons will ever have them - in other words, the nuclear family remains static - and those already in the nuclear family have fewer weapons that they can keep better track of.
I think that makes perfect sense.
I think the idea other states won't acquire nuclear weapons is still unrealistic. The knowledge is available, the technology bar isn't too high and getting lower every year. Entry costs are decreasing, and our own disarmament increases the benefit in terms of power and prestige of acquiring nuclear weapons. I think there will be at least two new nuclear actors, maybe more, by 2020.
However, I'm generally sympathetic to something Blayne said earlier. A nuclear weapon is largely a useless weapon; if it weren't viewed as such a big deal, I think fewer states would attempt to acquire. The problem is by limiting the number of states, you give the bomb an "in-crowd" mystique, upping its prestige. I think that's primarily why N. Korea worked so hard to get nuclear weapons, and why Iran and Syria are similarly working hard to acquire them. It's less about the weapon itself than it is proving that your state is as good as the big boys. And using it as leverage when trying to negotiate with Western states who are more concerned about proliferation.
I think the treaty was a good move; anything that improves the security of Russia's nukes is a primary concern right now, even if it increases the likelihood that some state actor goes nuclear in the future. But I also think that rhetoric about a nuclear free world, or even a hard limit on the number of nuclear states, is wishful thinking; we ought to reconcile ourselves to a world where many countries have a few nuclear weapons and spend some time thinking about and debating how to live in that world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... A nuclear weapon is largely a useless weapon; if it weren't viewed as such a big deal, I think fewer states would attempt to acquire. The problem is by limiting the number of states, you give the bomb an "in-crowd" mystique, upping its prestige. I think that's primarily why N. Korea worked so hard to get nuclear weapons, and why Iran and Syria are similarly working hard to acquire them.
I don't think so. A nuclear weapon is actually pretty useful as a last ditch weapon against the possibility of a regime going down (I think it has been noted here that Israel has this as an explicit policy). Thats why North Korea, Iran, and Syria have been working to get nuclear weapons. If you don't have nuclear weapons, you might become the next Afghanistan or Iraq. If you have nuclear weapons, then the possibility of invasion goes down.
To his credit, Obama seems to be trying to reverse that incentive although I don't think he will succeed.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We never have to use a nuclear weapon. But we leave the possibility on the table. It is fine if the President swears to himself to never use one. But we don't tell the world that. It is a deterrent. It is like carrying a gun with us into a convenient store, and then while an robbery is taking place telling the robber "I have a gun, but hey, I'm not going to use it no matter what you do. Can we talk instead?"
Geraine, Do you think that our military power outclassing any other 5 other countries' put together (excepting China, who as a nuclear power, this says that we might use nuclear weapons against them) is not enough of a deterrent?
Absolutely not. I do NOT think it is enough of a deterrent to have the most military power. Can our military decimate an entire city in an instant?
If the US (for whatever reason)needed to send their military into a country that had nuclear weapons and that country threatened to blow up New York if we did, what would you do?
Iran has made threats like this. Telling them that we will not use nuclear weapons against them when they are willing to use them against us shows weakness.
As I said before, we never should need to use them. We should never need them. However the threat is there and we need to be able to protect ourselves. I'd rather we threaten these countries with nuclear action than send our troops in harms way where they can be killed.
Ask yourself this: How many Americans died during the Cold War compared to the war in Iraq?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by mucus: A nuclear weapon is actually pretty useful as a last ditch weapon against the possibility of a regime going down (I think it has been noted here that Israel has this as an explicit policy). Thats why North Korea, Iran, and Syria have been working to get nuclear weapons. If you don't have nuclear weapons, you might become the next Afghanistan or Iraq. If you have nuclear weapons, then the possibility of invasion goes down.
I wouldn't discount that entirely as a motive, but I doubt it is a primary one. Mostly because I don't imagine many regimes are sufficiently concerned about being deposed via external actors to justify the cost of acquiring the weapons. I would imagine (and could, of course, be wrong) that the primary concern for regimes in Iran, N. Korea, Myanmar, Syria,... is internal regime change. To prevent that they need to increase national pride and work to decrease international sanctions. Nuclear weapons serve both those goals well. <edit>Although the pursuit or development of nuclear weapons may lead to increased sanctions in the short term. But long run, I think regimes generally see the use of such weapons as a bargaining chip as outweighing the short term costs in terms of sanctions</edit>
But whether the motivation it to deter revolution or invasion, the balance of interests tilts toward acquisition. The hope that we can permanently prevent the spread of nuclear weapons seems aspirational but illogical to me. The motivations of regimes seem fairly inelastic to international disapproval (even coupled with economic sanctions) and there is insufficient international "hard power" that can be brought to bear to limit nuclear growth.
Does anyone have some good examples of countries that have chosen to forgo acquiring nuclear weapons and their stated reasons? Nuclear weapons are presumably within the grasp of most wealthy nations, yet only a few have them. Why? I would guess that for most countries it boils down to feeling secure, both internally and externally. So if we're interested in non-proliferation maybe the right question to ask is how best to engender a sense of stability and security within sovereign states.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Ask yourself this: How many Americans died during the Cold War compared to the war in Iraq?
130,000 in Korean War. 360,000 in the Vietnam War.
Wounded and Killed in action and missing included.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Ask yourself this: How many Americans died during the Cold War compared to the war in Iraq?
I'm not sure what your point is here. Tens of thousands more Americans died in Korea and Vietnam than in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Cold War wasn't really cold in the sense that no fighting took place, it was done by proxy. If you're trumpeting the virtues of proxy wars as opposed to direct nuclear confrontation, then I guess the lesser of two evils wins out, but neither feels like a particularly good path to take.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Absolutely not. I do NOT think it is enough of a deterrent to have the most military power. Can our military decimate an entire city in an instant?
If the US (for whatever reason)needed to send their military into a country that had nuclear weapons and that country threatened to blow up New York if we did, what would you do?
Iran has made threats like this. Telling them that we will not use nuclear weapons against them when they are willing to use them against us shows weakness.
As I said before, we never should need to use them. We should never need them. However the threat is there and we need to be able to protect ourselves. I'd rather we threaten these countries with nuclear action than send our troops in harms way where they can be killed.
The fact that the US military if it got bitchy could instantly vaporize a city in an instant is why other nations want nuclear weapons so the US would be deterred from doing so.
Most countries if they tried to nuke New York in retaliation for US military intervention (something no reasonable military power would do) they most likely would not have the delivery systems to actually deliver these successfully or follow it up, there would be nothing stopping the US from retaliating with measured conventional force, do regime change and arrest and try the military and political leadership as war criminals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Absolutely not. I do NOT think it is enough of a deterrent to have the most military power. Can our military decimate an entire city in an instant?
(I'm going to assume you mean obliterate as opposed to decimate.) An instant, no. Over the course of a day or so, yeah, no problem. We don't do this because it's evil, not because we lack the capacity to do so. Once we had established air superiority over a city, we could use conventional bombs in massed waves to completely destroy it in pretty short order.
quote:If the US (for whatever reason)needed to send their military into a country that had nuclear weapons and that country threatened to blow up New York if we did, what would you do?
Iran has made threats like this. Telling them that we will not use nuclear weapons against them when they are willing to use them against us shows weakness.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is extremely inaccurate. This doctrine rules out the use of nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons and are abiding by the non-proliferation treaty.
In fact, here's a quote taken directly from the article linked to in the first post:
quote:Gates also noted, however, the new policy sends a "strong message" to states such as Iran and North Korea.
"If you're going to play by the rules [of the nonproliferation treaty], we will undertake certain obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules ... all options are on the table."
Your objections frankly don't make any sense in light of what the doctrine actually is. You should realize that wherever you got your impression from is a very unreliable source of information.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think we should take the word decimate back, and only use it when about 10% of a force has been eradicated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think we should take the word decimate back, and only use it when about 10% of a force has been eradicated.
From OED:
quote: USAGE Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people).’ This sense has been superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill or destroy a large percentage or part of,’ as in: the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this and other later senses are incorrect, but it is clear that these extended senses are now part of standard English. It is sometimes also argued that decimate should refer to people and not to things or animals such as weeds or insects. It is generally agreed that decimate should not be used to mean 'defeat utterly.'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)