US Nuclear Policy

[Zarquon]

Obama Limits When U.S. Can Use Nuclear Weapons

WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Monday that he was
revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow
the conditions under which the United States would use
nuclear weapons, even in self defense.

The strategy eliminates much of the ambiguity that has
deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the
opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United
States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the
United States with biological or chemical weapons, or
launched a crippling cyberattack.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp)
Not a complete No First Use policy, but still an improvement.
And there's that nuclear arsenal reduction pact with Russia.
So, is Obama committed to nuclear disarmament or are these just empty gestures?

[Michael]

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp)
Not a complete No First Use policy, but still an improvement.
And there's that nuclear arsenal reduction pact with Russia.
So, is Obama committed to nuclear disarmament or are these just empty gestures?

Actually, this actually was one of Obama's pet issues all along. He certainly does appear to be committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament and has been working on this goal for quite a long time - with virtually zero support from the Democratic party and the media. Only Senators Lugar and Hegel seem to support this initiative. :shrug:

As for the substance of Obama's policy statement, that does strike me as a 'posture' since it is coming out of left field without any context or issue.

If this policy replaces the horrific 'first strike' policy from the mid-1960s era (the one that France quit NATO in protest over), then that's an improvement. If this is just some executive statement without any policy basis, then it isn't.

[Donkey]

If this is something that Obama can slowly chip away at, he'll have at least done something positive on the foreign policy front.

[andrewl]

In other words the US still has a first strike policy against Iran and NK.

Andrew

[Michael]

In other words the US still has a first strike policy against Iran and NK.

Andrew
Yes.

Upon further review of this announcement, I must conclude that it is just a posture that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

I think Steven Walt (Foreign Policy magazine) has a good take on why...

FP (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/06/nuclear_posture_review_or_nuclear_public_relations )

Basically, this is just PR and will have no bearing upon nuclear issues. When push comes to shove, the US is going to use its nukes regardless of the carefully parsed words of Obama's memo.

Or to put it another way, one little memo doesn't change the reality that everyone on the planet is already convinced that the USA can and will use first strike nukes against anyone they please.

[Zarquon]

U.S. and Russia Sign Nuclear Arms Pact

President Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitri A.
Medvedev, signed a treaty on Thursday to trim their strategic
nuclear arsenals to their lowest levels in half a century.

The treaty caps a turnaround in relations with Moscow that
hit bottom in August 2008 during the war between Russia and
its tiny southern neighbor, Georgia. When he arrived in
office, Mr. Obama made restoring the relationship a priority,
a goal that coincided with his vision expressed here a year
ago of eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html?hp)
And the important bit:
The treaty, if ratified by lawmakers in both countries, would require each country to deploy no more than 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200 allowed in the Treaty of Moscow signed by President George W. Bush (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in 2002. Each would be limited to 800 total land-, air- and sea-based launchers — 700 of which can be deployed at any given time — down from 1,600 permitted under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start.
Because of counting rules and unilateral reductions over the years, neither country would have to actually eliminate large numbers of weapons to meet the new limits. Moreover, the treaty does not apply to whole categories of weapons, including thousands of strategic warheads held in reserve and tactical warheads, some of which are still stationed in Europe.
But the treaty would re-establish an inspection regime that lapsed along with Start last December and bring the two countries back into a legal framework after years of tension. Moreover, both sides hope to use it as a foundation for a new round of negotiations that could lead to much deeper reductions that will cover weapons like stored or tactical warheads.
The first task for Mr. Obama after returning to Washington will be persuading the Senate to ratify the new treaty and advisers planned to head to Capitol Hill on Thursday, even before his return, to brief senators.

[Michael]

Again, I see this whole deal as cheap PR for both USA and Russia.

Fact is, the nuclear stockpiles in both USA and Russia are getting old and several classes of missiles are way overdue for retirement.

At the same time, the advance of technology over the last twenty years has made the number of missiles actually much less relevant - given that newer missiles have multiple warheads (meaning that one new missile is equal to several old missiles).

The upshot is that agreeing to reduce the gross number of missiles is a 'win-win' agreement for both parties. In no way shape or form is the actual nuclear weapon strike capabilities of either side diminished.

But to the public, this agreement looks like great PR - who can argue with less nuclear missiles?

[Non Sequitur]

Again, I see this whole deal as cheap PR for both USA and Russia.

Fact is, the nuclear stockpiles in both USA and Russia are getting old and several classes of missiles are way overdue for retirement.

At the same time, the advance of technology over the last twenty years has made the number of missiles actually much less relevant - given that newer missiles have multiple warheads (meaning that one new missile is equal to several old missiles).

The upshot is that agreeing to reduce the gross number of missiles is a 'win-win' agreement for both parties. In no way shape or form is the actual nuclear weapon strike capabilities of either side diminished.

But to the public, this agreement looks like great PR - who can argue with less nuclear missiles?

Aren't the Multiple warhead missles (MIRV's) banned by some treaty or another (START II maybe)?