- Image via Wikipedia
While some folks have expressed fear, anger and dismay towards the new nuclear policy (or at least their straw man versions), I am not worried.
While the policy does mark what appears to be a significant change, it actually appears to have little practical impact on how we would actually wage war.
The policy is that we will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries. Unless, of course, they are in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (that means, for example, we can still nuke Iran) or they use biological weapons against us. This is, of course, the approach taken by the United States in the post WWII world. After all, we did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Even more importantly, all the major potential threats to the United States (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) are still legitimate targets for nuclear weapons. The countries that are excluded by this policy are hardly major threats to the United States.
Obviously, this policy does not actually change the nuclear weapons so that they can only be used in such situations. Should the United States face a truly dire situation that could only be resolved by nuclear weapons being employed in a way that violates this policy, then the weapons would certainly be used. While Obama is cast as a weakling socialist, he would not allow the United States to be destroyed just so he could stick with this policy.
Of course, it might be argued that this is a meaningful political change. After all, it seems to have outraged many folks on the right. While much of their alleged outrage is probably mere political posturing, they certainly do seem to think that it is worth attacking. While this does not prove that this is really a meaningful policy change, it does suggest that this might be the case.
Also, it does seem to reflect a change in language and creates the appearance that we are further leashing our nuclear beast. And, as is often said, appearance is (seen as) reality in politics.
As I see it, the change is primarily rhetorical. This is, I think, a smart move. Obama can use the policy to improve how America is seen by the world and score political points without actually reducing America’s security. However, he does run the risk that the Republicans will also use this to score political points, even if they have to attack a straw man version of the policy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Amazingly, I am actually in agreement with Obama on this one. Part of the non-proliferation treaty is that the U.S. and other nuclear nations work toward a nuclear-free world. If we are going to hold Iran and other countries to the terms of the treaty, we best abide by the terms of the treaty ourselves.
Obama, it might be suspected, is using the treaty and policy change as means to try to get states like Iran and North Korea to change their behavior.
LOL!
I’m sure.
While the issue isn’t a big deal to me: We still have enough nukes to deter most aggression, I must say that telling your enemies you have no intention of using nukes even if they bio attack you is not a good idea in my estimation, for a number of reasons.
1) Our enemies are more likely to have chem or bio weapons than nukes, in the first place.
2) You states that the treaty can be changed at any time. True. ANY treaty can be withdrawn from if it is not in the best interest of a nation to follow it.
Makes me think Foggy Bottom is that much more impotent.
3) You insinuate that it changes nothing. Yes it does. It changes how our enemies think. The purpose of nukes is not so much to destroy an enemy after a devestating attack, but to deter the devestating attack in the first place. So, let us say you have a .44 Mag under your pillow and know full well you’ll use it if someone breaks into your house at night and you feel threatened. But, just to *fool* the crooks, you decide to post a sign on your house declaring your anti-violent stance. Well, you just invited an attack. Sure, you may still kill the burglar. But you may be killed or crippled too. Better the crook knew you had a gun and went to someone else’s house.
Look, it’s obvious to anyone this side of Pyongyang that nukes are the absolute last resort. War is not reserved for dealing with logical nations. That’s the problem with the academic elite: They just want to use logic to solve everything. It won’t work. Our most dangerous enemies are not rational, they are passionate.
“Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”~Ronald Reagan
It is clear that Obama is big on making rhetorical gestures and that the world seems to eat it up–so why not? I don’t see a downside.
I am actually far more concerned that Obama has stopped R&D on the next generation of weapons. You don’t learn this stuff in graduate school. If the expertise is allowed to decay it will be hard to get it back.
That is a legitimate and serious concern. While nuclear weapons are rather horrible, they have also helped to keep the peace for decades. I good case can be made (as per Hobbes) that compelling force is needed to deter. So, we will need some post nuke weaponry.