This question seems to be at the forefront of thinking today, especially with Obama's speech calling for a world with no nuclear weapons. So, how do you think about the options for nuclear weapons in a post Cold War world?
The question seems to hinge on what you think about the reliability of deterrence.
Option 1:
This option follows the line of thinking that deterrence is reliable, and you should use nuclear weapons to continue to target your opponents major cities. To assume this, you must assume that all states share a common rationality, including "rouge" states.
Policy options based on Option 1:
A) Fewer nuclear weapons are needed. All you will need is a limited number of reliable nuclear weapons to maintain a credible deterrent.
B) No defenses are needed to protect against possible rouge nuclear threats. If "rouge" states share a common rationality, as assumed by the logic of this line of thinking, then there is no need to upset the so-called "balance of terror" by investing in programs such as missile defense.
Option 2:
This line of thinking assumes that deterrence will not work in all cases. Under this line of thinking, you must be prepared for the possibility that deterrence will fail, and have an option for what to do when it does.
Policy options based on Option 2:
A) Defenses against breakdowns in deterrence must be given a priority.
B) Missile defense, Civil Defense, and similar programs must receive large amounts of funding .
C) Additionally, warheads must continue to have their reliability ensured, and depending on who you are trying to deter, more warheads and reliable missiles would need to be produced.
If you buy into this line of thinking, these policy options are critical given what must be in place should deterrence fails.
Option 3:
This line of thinking is what the present administration follows, and the Bush administration only to an extent. This line of thinking assumes that deterrence is not as important as it used to be. It assumes that nuclear terrorism is the biggest threat we are facing today. (If you pay attention to multiple Bush speeches and Obama speeches you hear this echoed) The goal becomes the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Policy options based on Option 3:
A) If you assume that nuclear terrorism is the largest threat then Non-Proliferation must be the top priority. Current weapons must be secured and no new weapons should be produced.
B) The idea is that the US should set the example by giving up its own weapons. This is a throw back to the Cold War logic of Action/Reaction arms control. This line of thinking went that if the US gives up its weapons, others will follow suit. It is the reverse of the logic that if one side produces more weapons, others will follow suit.
Problems I have with this argument:
A) In a world with no nuclear weapons, the conventional dominance of the United States will dominate on the world stage. It therefore becomes logical for a small state to pursue additional nuclear weapons.
B) One needs to simply look to history to see why this will occur. During the Cold War, the United States in Western Europe (NATO included) could muster around 30 divisions, while the USSR could muster around 400 divisions.
C) The conventional imbalance that this created was dealt with through nuclear weapons. In this case the United States was weak and balanced by creating large amounts of nuclear weapons. Therefore, to assume that other nations would simply give up their weapons and cede themselves to our conventional dominance seems foolish.
D) It is therefore my assumption that a world free of nuclear weapons will never occur, and any US action to unilaterally eliminate its own weapons will result in the continued proliferation of other states.
Which option do each of you all think is the best? I personally think option 2 is the best option. In terms of cost, it is also probably the most expensive... what do you all think?
The question seems to hinge on what you think about the reliability of deterrence.
Option 1:
This option follows the line of thinking that deterrence is reliable, and you should use nuclear weapons to continue to target your opponents major cities. To assume this, you must assume that all states share a common rationality, including "rouge" states.
Policy options based on Option 1:
A) Fewer nuclear weapons are needed. All you will need is a limited number of reliable nuclear weapons to maintain a credible deterrent.
B) No defenses are needed to protect against possible rouge nuclear threats. If "rouge" states share a common rationality, as assumed by the logic of this line of thinking, then there is no need to upset the so-called "balance of terror" by investing in programs such as missile defense.
Option 2:
This line of thinking assumes that deterrence will not work in all cases. Under this line of thinking, you must be prepared for the possibility that deterrence will fail, and have an option for what to do when it does.
Policy options based on Option 2:
A) Defenses against breakdowns in deterrence must be given a priority.
B) Missile defense, Civil Defense, and similar programs must receive large amounts of funding .
C) Additionally, warheads must continue to have their reliability ensured, and depending on who you are trying to deter, more warheads and reliable missiles would need to be produced.
If you buy into this line of thinking, these policy options are critical given what must be in place should deterrence fails.
Option 3:
This line of thinking is what the present administration follows, and the Bush administration only to an extent. This line of thinking assumes that deterrence is not as important as it used to be. It assumes that nuclear terrorism is the biggest threat we are facing today. (If you pay attention to multiple Bush speeches and Obama speeches you hear this echoed) The goal becomes the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Policy options based on Option 3:
A) If you assume that nuclear terrorism is the largest threat then Non-Proliferation must be the top priority. Current weapons must be secured and no new weapons should be produced.
B) The idea is that the US should set the example by giving up its own weapons. This is a throw back to the Cold War logic of Action/Reaction arms control. This line of thinking went that if the US gives up its weapons, others will follow suit. It is the reverse of the logic that if one side produces more weapons, others will follow suit.
Problems I have with this argument:
A) In a world with no nuclear weapons, the conventional dominance of the United States will dominate on the world stage. It therefore becomes logical for a small state to pursue additional nuclear weapons.
B) One needs to simply look to history to see why this will occur. During the Cold War, the United States in Western Europe (NATO included) could muster around 30 divisions, while the USSR could muster around 400 divisions.
C) The conventional imbalance that this created was dealt with through nuclear weapons. In this case the United States was weak and balanced by creating large amounts of nuclear weapons. Therefore, to assume that other nations would simply give up their weapons and cede themselves to our conventional dominance seems foolish.
D) It is therefore my assumption that a world free of nuclear weapons will never occur, and any US action to unilaterally eliminate its own weapons will result in the continued proliferation of other states.
Which option do each of you all think is the best? I personally think option 2 is the best option. In terms of cost, it is also probably the most expensive... what do you all think?