Among Barack Obama’s most endearing qualities is his apparent grasp of what the French call nuance. In an era when political discourse is conducted on the “soundbite” level of children’s advertising, the President has shown a refreshing capacity for talking to his fellow Americans like the thinking adults most of us still are, whether the topic is race relations on the campaign trail or justified war in Oslo. This makes his ongoing attachment to the “rid the world of nuclear weapons” mantra (most recently in a NYT article on arms negotiations) quite annoying.
Obama knows that “ridding the world of nuclear weapons” is about as feasible a policy goal as George Bush’s “ending tyranny in the world.” The idea that a world free of nuclear weapons would be a more peaceful world is itself breathtakingly, dangerously removed from historical reality. Some eighty million people died between 1914 and 1945; that’s what happens in modern industrial warfare between great powers whose interests and ideologies diverge. After 1945 there were still great powers with conflicting interests and ideologies, but nuclear deterrence made “winning” any direct war against each other impossible. The risk that even a small skirmish begun in the morning could end with the belligerents in the Stone Age by mid-afternoon was enough to keep the Cold War cold, and remains the ultimate hedge against WWIII.
That said, America or any other nuclear power needs only enough nukes to maintain a credible deterrent—not more, because warheads are incredibly expensive to maintain, and a security problem when they’re just lying around by the hundreds, tempting terrorists everywhere. The latter point has been acknowledged by Obama on many occasions with his call to stop nuclear proliferation. As long as America has these extra nukes, we may as well put their axing to diplomatic use in reduction talks with Russia and other powers. Moscow is of course not going to completely “disarm” itself any more than we are, but the cost and security issues associated with keeping more bombs than necessary affect it as much as they do Washington. Ultimately, reduction talks (like those Obama is now pursuing) also offer a chance to build trust between governments whose cooperation on a range of other international matters remains vital.
Some have suggested that Obama’s no-nukes stance plays a practical role as part of his greater effort to rebrand America in the eyes of the world, making the US seem less like a hypocritical warmonger when it calls for states like Iran and North Korea to give up their atomic aspirations. But it’s unlikely that these rogues take the President at his word anyway. They know that Obama could theoretically order every silo, sub and bomber under his command to stand down tomorrow if he was so genuinely committed to complete disarmament. And they know that such a ludicrous order would never be heeded; that Congress, the Pentagon and the cabinet would end his presidency before settling for the total collapse of the nuclear umbrella.
So instead of keeping up the disarmament rhetorical charade, it would do the country good for the President to articulate a clearer position on nuclear weapons (his actual position, with realistic goals he’s already acting on) to the public with the same commendable nuance he has other major issues. Unless of course, he seriously believes the world can and should be rid of nukes. In that case we’re in trouble.
I agree that it would be impossible to rid the world of nukes, and because of that, disarmament is not a good plan. But there is something to be said for a president who wants America to practice what she preaches. I think it’s commendable that he wants America to reduce its own stash of nuclear weaponry so we won’t look like hypocrites to the rest of the world, regardless of whether or not other nations heed our warnings. Perhaps other nations would be more likely to listen to our cries for their disarmament if we took our own advice.
As I discussed in my article in the print issue, Obama’s pledge to reduce nuclear weapons is wrongheaded in the long run but incredibly worthwhile in the short run. The US nuclear arsenal is extremely bloated, and recent studies have confirmed that nuclear modernization will not require nearly as much development and testing as some American politicians believe.
The Russian nuclear deterrent is weakening. It is far too expensive for Russia to modernize their nuclear arsenal as it stands, and so defense planners are sensibly hoping to focus on modernizing their submarine-launched weapons, which are the most effective nuclear deterrent. That said, the RSM-56 Bulava’s repeated and increasingly spectacular failures, along with the general atrophy of the Russian navy, mean the US can rest comfortably with something much smaller than its current arsenal. China’s nuclear arsenal is even worse off, with very limited capability to hit inside the American heartland. So the zero nukes pledge is worth starting, not finishing, and many of its proponents in academia and the government see it the same way. Even if Obama is serious (and he may well be), the naivete of the ends does not devalue the means.
Also, reducing US nuclear weapons has zero chance of halting proliferation. The cause of nuclear proliferation is not resentment of ‘hypocrisy,’ it is the strategic advantage of nuclear arms, which is far greater for small countries than larger ones. A nuclear free world would increase the incentives for smaller countries to develop nuclear weapons; the need to deter conventional force and bolster national pride would be just as great, and if they used these arms to deter superpowers conventional forces, there would be less fear of escalation. I highly doubt the appeal of nuclear arms is socially constructed.