Obama’s Non-Nuclear World
Barack Obama called on Tuesday for the elimination of all the world’s nuclear weapons. According to AFP, Obama wants America to lead the way to disarming the world. "India and Pakistan and North Korea have joined the club of nuclear-armed nations, and Iran is knocking on the door. More nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed nations mean more danger to us all. Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." And the place to start the disarmament would be America, although Obama stressed he would not disarm unilaterally, and would back a strong US deterrent while nuclear weapons existed. "We’ll be in a better position to lead," he said, adding that under his presidency, the United States would adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “It’s time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It’s time for America to lead."
Obama’s views don’t actually mean a world in which nuclear know-how has been abolished. On the contrary they assume a world in which nuclear knowledge has become universal. What they describe is a world without ready-use nukes. In fact, Obama’s speech bears an uncanny resemblance to the concept of shifting to a "virtual nuclear arsenal", what Colin Gray called "a thinking person’s variant of nuclear abolition", as a way of lessening the chance of using atomic weapons. The "world in which there are no nuclear weapons" Obama speaks of is not one where the knowledge of atomic physics and engineering has been abolished but one in which everyone agrees not have nuclear weapons ready for use. Gray adds that "nuclear virtuality should reinforce the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by disarming the world’s active military inventories of nuclear weapons". Ian Davis, writing in the Guardian describes this nuclear strategy in a way that might have channeled Obama.
Britain could revert to a threshold nuclear weapon status, sometimes described as a virtual nuclear arsenal. This might be achieved either slowly (allowing the existing life-cycle of Trident to run its course) or relatively quickly (though a managed disarmament process). Either way, the intention would be to move to a virtual nuclear status and thereby leave the door ajar to re-constitute a rudimentary nuclear weapon quickly should the unlikely need arise in the future. Several nuclear capable but non-nuclear weapons states (like Japan) are already in this position.
This might be achieved under the "managed disarmament process", for example, by Britain decommissioning the Trident submarines, removing and dismantling the warheads but retaining both the fissile material under international inspection and appropriate expertise at Aldermaston. In which case, it should be possible for a nuclear warhead to be built within a relatively short time frame. Britain’s formal status under the NPT would be unaffected, as by definition (having exploded a nuclear weapon prior to 1967) it would remain a nuclear weapon state, at least until a new Treaty were negotiated in the event of all the nuclear weapon states achieving similar threshold status. In practice, the UK could declare its intention to act as a non-nuclear weapon state, and request to be treated as such by the IAEA.
Davis notes an objection from professionals strategists and quickly dismisses it:
Max Hastings, citing "Britain’s foremost nuclear strategist" Sir Michael Quinlan, says that this is not possible: "If we abandon nuclear weapons, it will be almost impossible ever to reverse such a decision." This is not true. The key technical questions are: how long would it take and what would be the delivery vehicle? While it would be extremely difficult to resurrect quickly a Rolls Royce nuclear weapon system like Trident, a Morris Minor nuclear deterrent would be a simple project for Britain. This would take the form of a free-fall bomb, the original and most basic nuclear weapon design, delivered by aircraft, or a land-based or surface-navy-based missile.
A virtual nuclear weapon would be the cheapest and least sophisticated insurance policy against the emergence of a blackmail possibility by a future nuclear-armed rogue state. Questions concerning the feasibility and timeline of this option remain, and are not limited to technical questions. The military, legal and political (both domestic and international) implications of such a decision would need to be addressed.
But Davis’ dismissal is very superficial. Apart from the fact that reverting to a "free-fall" bomb as he suggests would be a return to targeting cities, a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki, other difficulties remain. By equating the possession of nuclear weapons to the capability to produce nuclear weapons, not only Japan but practically every industrially advanced country would become to varying degrees, "virtual nuclear states". That would have the paradoxical effect of removing any meaningful rationale for non-proliferation.
Whatever the advocates say about putting “fissile material” under international nuclear inspection, there is far less political menace inherent in aspiring to become a virtual nuclear state than an actual one. The difficulties in mustering the international will to prevent Iran from becoming an “actual” nuclear weapons state are almost insurmountable. What chance would there be of imposing sanctions, or even threatening war on Iran or any NPT violator if it declares intent to become a “virtual nuclear state”? Probably no chance whatsoever.
Virtual nuclear armament would become a normal condition. What is the point of preventing a normal condition? Obama’s observation that nuclear technology is spreading combined with his desire to create "a world in which there are no nuclear weapons" leads to a world in which everybody eventually knows how to build nukes, but nobody says they actually have them ready for use. It would be a ban is on having an actual arsenal not a virtual arsenal. In that world there can be no cogent rationale for preventing Iran from becoming a "virtual nuclear power" for so long as it declares it has no ready-use nukes.
But the two most important problems inherent in the concept of a virtual nuclear arsenal remain unaddressed: the fate of deterrence and the problem of arms verification. While we nostalgically yearn for the time before the Atomic Bomb spread its dark wings over mankind, it would be well to recall that the world before deterrence was the most violent period in history. World War 2 killed 300 million people. Whatever their faults, nuclear weapons made all-out wars impractical as an instrument of national expansion and aggrandizement. They led directly to the miniscule armies of Western Europe now possesses. In the 1940s the armies of Europe were numbered in the millions. By 1950 such huge military establishments were widely regarded as useless precisely because of nuclear weapons. Might a return to the pre-nuclear age restart conventional warfare in a world grown largely free of it? Moreover, much of today’s "international system" is a direct result of the nuclear monopoly by the Great Powers. The Security Council is nothing but another name for the Nuclear Club. That is where it derives its authority. A globe in which all countries were alike virtual nuclear states would have serious implications for the stability of the international system.
When you think about it, Obama’s proposal only requires existing nuclear weapons states to do something. Nations on the road to virtual nuclear weaponry need do nothing at all but stay the course. Lastly there is the problem of arms verification. Arms control technology relies very heavily on the detection of fissile enrichment facilities and delivery systems. Uranium enrichment plants, missile silos, etc are easy to count. But in a world where becoming a "virtual nuclear state" is to all intents and purposes acceptable, the existence of Iran’s centrifuges, for example, would cross no red lines. Scientific "know-how" is impossible to detect. Since nuclear warheads themselves are fairly small (ten of them can be put on a missile) they are easily concealed. A statement by the UK or USA that it has no nuclear weapons could be regarded as true, but what force would a similar declaration by Russia, China or Iran have? Furthermore, surveillance technology can more easily detect standard Western delivery systems (like bombers, ballistic missile subs, etc) based on conventional platforms than terrorist delivery systems (trucks, shipping containers, disassembled componentized bombs). Again, Obama’s proposal would require existing nuclear powers to dismantle all the visible signs of their weaponry. It would not require Iran or North Korea to do without shipping containers. Obama’s proposal might reduce the odds of an all-out nuclear exchange but at the cost of making a limited nuclear surprise attack or terrorist WMD strike more likely — and without riposte by the victim nation. Would this be a safer world than today’s? Maybe someone should ask Barack Obama.
With all due respect Richard this is left-wing “pacifistic” BS:
“While we nostalgically yearn for the time before the Atomic Bomb spread its dark wings over mankind,”
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved millions of lives.
Our nuclear arsenal protected us and the free world. Prevented a complete invasion of Europe by the commies.
Our arsenals still protect us. As Israel’s nukes protect Israel.
Disarmament would be no better than gun-control.
the bad guys never follow the ruiles, the they’re the one we need protection from.
I don;t give a hoot that France has nukes or Israel. I worry about THE BAD GUYS getting them.
And if we don’t have them it doesn’t make them less likely to use their nukes once they get them – IF THEY DO.
Wake up, Richard
Get rid of this dovish lib crap.
“America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.”
I also seek a world in which there are no bad people and everybody sings Kumbayah. Unfortunately, I don’t live in such an utopian universe. Barack Obama has proven himself to be childishly immature. By all rights, this act of pacifist idiocy should destroy his campaign. But we know, alas, that this is not likely to occur. Senator Obama speaks for the “mainstream” of the Democratic Party which has been captured by George McGovern and his ilk.
david thomson is 10000% right.
DAVID::: what’s going on here at PJM?!?!?
Are they going wobbly or just pandering for more “centrist” page views?
between this and roger’s gore post yesterday i am digusted.
The full text of Barack Obama’s remarks here says (emphasis mine): “We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”
The problem is that the focus of the NPT has already been one of preventing the production of fissile material for weapons. That is precisely what international pressure has trying to achieve with Iran with so little success to date. If the international community, led by nuclear-armed states cannot now compel Iran not to produce fissile material under the current NPT how can plans be laid to enforce the ban on fissile materials with the current great powers substantially disarmed? If you cannot do it while you are strong why should you succeed when you are weak? One must ask whether the prohibition of fissile materials production is better achieved by an America wielding a big stick or one in which it has put down the stick and hopes others will follow by example.
Finally, the reason current US arsenals depend on a Triad (bomber, land missile, submarine missile) is to ensure that the nation’s retaliatory power cannot be taken out in a few hits. And as weapons numbers decrease (as Obama plans) an element of instability will eventually creep into the deterrence. Care must be taken so that all weapons holdings go down together, otherwise someone may hold back until US weapons numbers are low enough to “go for it”.
None of this is to say that removing nuclear weapons from the world is necessarily a bad idea, but it can lead in certain circumstances, to a more dangerous world, not a safer one.
richard;
as restrictive gun laws and IAEA/NPT prove, only good guys obey the rules.
believing this polciy might work against the bad guys is idiotically naive:
“We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”
idiocy.
but hey: evryone LOVED neville chamberlain and hated winston.
until 1939.
neville was a well-intentioned disarmament fella like obama.
it’s idiocy.
i know about this: i was raised by FOUNDING MEMBERS of SANE.
i marched with the disarmament crowd in Central Park when reagan deployed the pershings.
REAGAN AND WINSTON WERE RIGHT.
CHAMBERLAIN AND OBAMA ARE WRONG.
would israel be safer with no nukes!?
don’t be so fooooooolish to think so.
maintaining the peace comes through strength.
we should NEVER relinquish our advantage.
during the 2003/4 primary season Dean conjectured that there would come a day when the USA was not the strongest military power in the world.
i shudder to think of what comes next.
Dean was rightly lambasted.
as you and obama are, too.
nukes are not good or bad.
when we have them they are good.
when iran or al qaeda have them they are bad.
end of story.
WAKE UP.
The devil is in the details. Richard Hernandez is right to highlight this sentence:
“We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons.”
At the end of the day, Barack Obama believes a more vulnerable United States will somehow encourage every nation to follow our lead. A leading contender to become our next national leader must not be so niave. This is why one has to be wary of the first couple of sentences from Democratic Party candidates. The really crazy stuff does not normally appear until around the fourth or fifth sentences. You have to listen closely.
Why is everyone so quick to assume Barack Obama is naive? He looks and sounds intelligent. So why do we rush to excuse his proposal as foolish or impractical. Perhaps he fully understands how dangerous such an action would be and welcomes the prospect of an defenseless and vulnerable America. Shouldn’t we be questioning his motives for such a ridiculous narratives and demand an explanation for such a risky plan ?
Ask American voters if they want to be nuclear-free after a terrorist atomic bomb goes off in a major US city.
Our nuclear arsenal would enable us to wipe out OBL and AQ in Pakistan after such a devastating attack.
Which is perhaps one reason it hasn’t happened?
david wrote:
“At the end of the day, Barack Obama believes a more vulnerable United States will somehow encourage every nation to follow our lead. A leading contender to become our next national leader must not be so naive.”
HE IS 100000% correct.
The proposal is a NON-STARTER, and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
it disqualifies obama.
the folks we have to be most concerned about would be the least affected by the policy change.
it would make us more vulnerable.
i repeat: nukes in the RIGHT hands are very good; they have STOPPED wars. they stopped war between pakistan and india. the prevented a noko invasion of soko and a ussr invasion of western europe.
and they got the ussr to bug out of cuba.
the anti-nuke crowd are merely anti-defense-spending people.
they never met a defense budget they ever liked.
they distrust or hate the military.
always have.
i know: i was raised by them. i was with them from the 1960′s to 1990.
they are not to be trusted with the defense of the free world.
We should thank Obama for stating the truth, publicly.
He will not accept the responsibility of leading the nation in the world as it is.
He’s more than willing to lead the nation in the world as he wishes it to be. In that world, I’d vote for him.
You guys do whatever you like, but we’re not giving up an inch of our deterrent over here come hell, high water or Obama for that matter..
Frankly I suspect everyone else would quietly carry out the same making this policy suitable for dreamland.
Some other remarks he made earlier regarded “slowing development” of missile defense systems… If you’re going to trade your sword for a stick, at least have a big enough shield that you have time to change back.
Not voting for this guy.
Ugh… I remembered what he’d said incorrectly. What he really insinuated is that he is basically going to CUT FUNDING to “unproven” missile defense systems. What exactly does this mean? Who knows; one thing you’ve gotta love about campaign trail politicians is how vague they are on touchy subjects.
Whatever.