The Cold War absurdity surrounding nuclear weapons has not completely faded. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that U.S. President Barack Obama was rethinking America’s nuclear policy. While Obama will alter some policies, he will continue to reserve America’s right to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks.
This comes despite pressure from many Democrats, most notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California. They are right to point out that such a declaration is completely at odds with reality. The reason Obama doesn’t want to change the United State’s stance is nakedly political. He is afraid that those on the right will portray him as soft and naive, while defenders of nuclear weapons in the military may attack him if their legitimacy and purpose is questioned.
The United States currently maintains thousands of nuclear weapons — a relic of a Cold War policy.
Conventional nuclear weapons are designed to cause widespread destruction and inflict devastating causalities on civilians and the surrounding environment.
Yet, there is no nation that can remotely compete with the United States on a conventional military level. Other than a massive, nuclear attack, opponents of the United States can always be dealt with by conventional military means that don’t inflict unnecessary casualties on innocent people.
Assume there was a terrorist attack that inflicted massive amounts of causalities on the United States. First there would have to be a nation or nations that could even be held responsible. Second, even if we find those nations, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of their civilians with nuclear weapons serves no purpose but revenge. The United States could just as easily do what it did in Afghanistan or Iraq and eliminate the offending regime.
The same applies even if a nation like Iran or North Korea launched a biological or nuclear attack. Mutually assured destruction is based on both sides having the capability to absolutely destroy each other with nuclear weapons. Should either of those nations even launch an attack, the United States could respond with overwhelming military force, without massacring hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people.
The purpose of America’s nuclear arsenal has only been deterrence against a massive nuclear strike. Obama should focus on building anti-missile defenses and disavow the use of nuclear weapons in any way but as a second strike in the event of a nuclear assault.
These defenses would deter nations like North Korea, while allowing an increased drawdown of expensive and unneeded weapons.
