The Bulletin Online
By Pavel Podvig | 17 October 2007
The vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world is as old as nuclear weapons themselves. One way or another, the idea of complete nuclear disarmament has always been a part of the international political debate, which, of course, includes the United States. Only recently, however, has this idea entered the U.S. political discourse in a way that it is safe for "mainstream" U.S. presidential candidates such as Barack Obama to openly call for nuclear abolition--if only as a distant goal. This is partially a result of a call for a nuclear-weapon-free world in a January 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed published by four former high-ranking U.S. officials (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry). Their call has already been endorsed by a number of their former colleagues, and we should expect new interesting, high-profile endorsements in the near future.
Some of my colleagues who have been advocating nuclear abolition for a long time argue that the motives of these U.S. politicians are self-serving and even imperialistic. The United States, they say, has finally figured out that a world where other countries have nuclear weapons is getting increasingly difficult to manage. I don't think this is the true motivation of those who signed the op-ed or have since endorsed its vision; indeed, nuclear weapons are obsolete, and the realization of this fact is simply finding its way into mainstream politics.
But getting support for the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free world from U.S. political leaders might be the easiest part of the effort. Regardless of whether U.S. politicians are motivated by idealism or cold calculation, the rest of the world will certainly look at their statements with suspicion. Take, for example, Russia, a country crucial to any serious attempt to move nuclear disarmament forward.
Largely due to the economic recovery of the last few years, Russia has busily modernized its strategic forces and invested a lot of effort and resources into upgrading the support infrastructure for these forces. It's building new land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, and early warning radars and satellites. In itself, this modernization is not entirely incompatible with the idea of disarmament--one can even argue that it might be easier for Russian leadership to agree to dramatic cuts in its nuclear forces now that it's demonstrated that it can sustain strategic parity with Washington. The real problem in Russia is that the idea of nuclear disarmament is completely absent from the public and professional discussion. Even President Vladimir Putin's opponents are more likely to criticize him for not doing enough to enhance strategic forces rather than question the growing reliance on nuclear weapons.
In this environment, a U.S. call for complete nuclear disarmament will certainly revive old worries about U.S. military capabilities that have existed in Russia for a long time. One of them is that U.S. conventional forces, with their high-precision weapons, could be used in a preemptive attack to destroy most of Russia's strategic launchers. Another is that U.S. missile defense could further help neutralize whatever retaliatory potential Moscow might have left. Neither of these claims would withstand serious scrutiny, but unfortunately, this doesn't matter much; there are enough people in Russia who will make these arguments, and Russian politicians will be happy to pretend to take them seriously.
In reality, from a national security viewpoint, Russia, similar to the United States or any other country, would be much better off without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons may have played a role in the past, but they cannot possibly deal with the kind of security threats countries face today. But it will take time for Russia to start a serious (or any, for that matter) discussion of whether it really needs nuclear weapons. Having U.S. politicians endorse the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world helps enormously, but it's only a start. Eventually, Washington will need to deal with Russia's perceptions of U.S. policies and do a better job of dispelling the notion that the U.S. security posture (whether backed by nuclear or conventional weapons) threatens Moscow, a deeply held belief among the Russian public.
The book
Comments
> The vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world...
... is just a vision. A daydream.
:-)
Pavel,
First of all, I respect your oppinion on a number of subjects, but I cannot possibly agree or even see your point in many cases recently, where you try to explain how Russia is in fact wrong for having doubts and suspisions and not being open enough to consider droping nuclear weapons. I mean, the real thing, as presented, puts and eye on Russia and its "cold war" logic and remanins to blame. What about real threats to Russian security? Can't you see what is happening in the world? US is attacking its enemies and political opponents and noone has means of stopping it! No human right, no international standards are strong enough to stop it. Look at Iraq and Yugoslavia! The only way to ensure your security is by force you posses, and nuclear weapons seem to be the most credible detterent. So, while the world is functioning the way it is, if I were in Russian political establishmen, I wouldn't dare to consider droping on nuclear weapons. The only way this could work is if U.S. showed a real will to do this first, or start doing it. We are now facing a situation when for the first time after decades, policy of MAD is no more credible. Ok, I know this is not quite the case, but if you look what is the real loss here, it is if someone, some hot shot from Pentagon, had this illusion of possibilitie to win the nuclear war and there is increasingly enough arguments for someone to believe it(very fast withdrawal from service of missiles in paralel with U.S. missile shield). Now, this is the real risk! The way to true denuclearization is step by step paralel dissarmament with a constant balance of power. While is U.S. moving its weapons to stockpiles instead of destroying them? They have even more of credible deterence. You wonder why there isn't enough people arguing in Russia for denuclearization. The reason is simple: it is against common sence.
These are good questions, but I just don't think nuclear weapons are the answer. I agree that recent U.S. policies are questionable, to say the least, but I don't think that Russian nuclear weapons could do anything about them.
The same is with the United States - nuclear weapons are not helping it to deal with Iraq, Iran or North Korea. U.S. conventional military power certainly gives the it additional options of dealing with some situations, but I would argue that the U.S. would be better off had it not had those options - it would have forced to find non-military solutions that in the end could provide much better security.
Where I agree with you (and this is more or less what this column is about) is that in calling for nuclear disarmament the United States should realise that it's not just about replacing nuclear force with conventional. Russia's concerns about first strike or missile defense may not be justified (they are not, I believe), but they reflect certain reality nevertheless.
> ...but I just don't think nuclear weapons are the answer.
- Really, Pavel, nuclear weapons are not the answer. The answer is MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction.
Pavel:
[...The same is with the United States - nuclear weapons are not helping it to deal with Iraq, Iran or North Korea. U.S. conventional military power certainly gives the it additional options of dealing with some situations, but I would argue that the U.S. would be better off had it not had those options - it would have forced to find non-military solutions that in the end could provide much better security...]
How do you know nuclear weapons are not helping in America’s dealing with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank: Are they helping? Can you tell us how?
Pavel:
Would you not agree that once a nation develops a nuclear weapons capability, the world treats it differently? One does not need nuclear weapons to be a powerful, respected nation. (Germany or Japan) Having nuclear weapons does not make you a world power. (North Korea or Pakistan) However, you can’t be a world power without nuclear weapons. That is the paradox.
The US relationship with modern Iraq, Iran, and North Korea is post-1945 when the United States became a nuclear power. You can’t simply rewrite history and say America possessing such weapons have had no effect in our relationships with these countries, past or present. Or, saying if the United States had no nuclear weapons, or if such weapons had never been “invented”, our relationship with each today would be the same.
Frank Shuler
USA
It's a different issue. I'm not saying that historically U.S. relationship with, say, North Korea would have been the same without U.S. nuclear weapons. What I am saying is that U.S. nuclear weapons are pretty much irrelevant today.
Pavel:
However, it is those nuclear weapons that define our relationship today. There are three types of nuclear weapons.
1. Nuclear weapons that might be used in a preemptive first strike.
2. Nuclear weapons that would be used in retaliation if attacked.
3. And nuclear weapons that never will be used.
Or better stated it is the implied threat of those nuclear weapons that define international relationships. The United States really doesn’t care if North Korea has nuclear weapons; we only care the technology isn’t sold, bartered, or transferred. Give that, whether the DPRK has 6 warheads or 60 is of little concern. Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined and yet seems to garner little respect. Reliance on nuclear weapons alone to project power is an empty threat. If the United States stood down its nuclear arsenal tomorrow there would be an immediate paradigm shift in world politics. If the United States announced a unilaterally reduced to 1000 nuclear weapons tomorrow, nothing would change.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Would you not agree that once a nation develops a nuclear weapons capability, the world treats it differently? One does not need nuclear weapons to be a powerful, respected nation. (Germany or Japan).
- Frank, do not tell for the entire world. Tell for US, or better tell for yourself.
- World is much bigger than the US. It seems that the most US citizens needs to learn how do not isolate yourself in the shell of the 'national vision'.
Frank: I was talking about very specific situation. Say, in Iraq. How do all three types of nuclear weapons that you've listed help the U.S. fight insurgencies in Iraq or bring some law and order there?
Pavel:
To draw the obtuse conclusion, what foreign government is prepared to intervene in Iraq at America’s expense? Are American nuclear weapons holding Syrian or Iranian forces at bay? Jordanian? Farfetched? Of course, but the inference is made. My point is that you can’t separate American power and its nuclear arsenal.
American can’t “win” an insurgency in Iraq or ‘bring law and order” there. Only the Iraqi’s can solve their country’s problems. The United States today is only swapping “lives for time” in the hopes the Iraqi people can pull their country together. History does not record many success stories in similar ventures.
Frank Shuler
USA
Russian:
[…Frank, do not tell for the entire world. Tell for US, or better tell for yourself…]
I’m honestly not sure of your point. Can you elaborate?
I can assure you Americans have no real “national vision” pertaining to world geo-politics or anything else. We are a nation of big ideas, mass consumption, and trend setting. And, the attention span of America is very short.
Frank Shuler
USA
The mere suggestion that nuclear weapons are somehow obsolete, let alone the fact that this idea has found its way into mainstream politics, is to me unnerving. Though it is possible to disassemble every nuclear weapon it is impossible to un-invent them. This innate and indelible reality is here for as long as we are and for however long that is, these weapons will have an immeasurable affect on the way we live. The threat will always be there. I am not saying this against nuclear disarmament. Naturally, the fewer nuclear weapons there are, the less the danger of their use. But I am saying that there will always be a danger and this can never be forgotten or denied. To consider that these weapons are obsolete, or will be obsolete in the future, is on the border of ignoring this reality.
The United States is slowly abandoning its nuclear power. Most denior DoD officials and generals see little to no use for nuclear weapons. 'Hoss' Cartwright's recent diatribe against nuclear weapons is proof of this. The rest of the world needs to realize that the US will soon unilaterally disarm, or allow its warheads/forces to atrify. Different actions but the same result.
I do not beleive that U.S. will ever abandon nuclear weapons. U.S. has always used the threat or actual use of military power to force other nations to obey. Sometimes it coincided with good for the world, sometimes not. But it always ensured benefit to U.S. Here the intention is not holy. The aim of U.S. was always to force others to make economic decisions favorable to U.S. by using military threat. The NMD is aimed at ensuring that no one can take retaliatory action against U.S. in case they don't agree and thus ensure their decisions are obeyed by the world. This being the central theme how do they expect Russia to abandon their quest for maintaining their independence of decision making without nuclear weapons? I beleive that it is Russia that never wanted any domination over other nations.
K.A. Sharma,
We'll have to agree to disagree about Russia not wanting to dominate other nations. What would you call the 50 year occupation of eastern and central Europe? Let's also add Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, et al.
Russia has a very pointed history of domineering other nations.