In early June, the The Biden administration announced a more “competitive” nuclear weapons strategy, after Moscow and Beijing reportedly spurned US efforts to discuss arms control. The new approach includes the possibility of increasing the deployment of America’s strategic nuclear weapons. The administration’s more muscular stance may be just a small payment for the larger nuclear buildup reflected in it a new report issued by Congress. The public has a strong interest in participating in this discussion now, before the bills and risks arrive.
“How much is enough” regarding America’s nuclear forces is not a new question. It has been debated by political, military and scientific leaders since the first two nuclear weapons were used to end World War II almost 80 years ago. Today, Washington and its two most likely nuclear adversaries, Russia and China, are all examining their nuclear ledgers to express tensions in great power relations, new technologies such as artificial intelligence and cyber warfare and the emerging battlefield in space.
Will the American people have a voice in this debate? Historically, there have been times when public opinion has driven nuclear policy, and not just through elected representatives in Congress who voted on defense allocations. Widespread concern about radioactive fallout helped negotiate a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing in the early 1960s. In the early 1980s, millions of people came to the United States and Europe to protest the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons, which put pressure on President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev of the USSR to negotiate a ban on the system.
But it has been decades since the American public weighed in on nuclear policy, leaving the discussion to a handful of government, civilian and military bureaucrats and members of Congress.
The rest of us have practical and existential reasons to participate. To begin with, the resources needed to maintain or expand our nuclear arsenal are enormous – hundreds of billions of dollars for new land-based nuclear missiles, bombers and submarines. This would come at a considerable cost to other defense capabilities and domestic priorities. Even more profoundly, a more aggressive nuclear policy and the mere presence of more weapons could increase the risk of nuclear use, posing an existential threat to us all. As the CIA’s former deputy director of intelligence rightly told national security adviser Henry Kissinger decades ago, “Once nuclear weapons start landing, the response may be irrational.”
Based on research by independent experts published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the United States currently deploys more than 1,700 nuclear weapons. About half of these warheads are on “every day”, ready to launch in minutes. Half of these are deployed at sea, immune from attack. Any rational nuclear adversary – say Russia or China, alone or together – must conclude that using a single nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies in Europe or Asia might trigger an American nuclear response that could eliminate the aggressor’s leadership. , military forces and industry. And the sobering fact is that a rational US president would have to draw conclusions about Russia, which is deploying the same nuclear weapons as the US, and China, with a smaller but vast nuclear inventory.
Adding more nuclear weapons, missile silos, bombers or submarines to the mix in China, Russia or the US – or applying new technology, speed or power – will not change the fundamentals of nuclear power: Use even one nuclear weapon and risk nuclear retaliation and more nuclear war many will destroy the nation. The sensible way for the US is to ensure an adequate nuclear deterrent that puts a premium on survival, which means that firepower and totality are limited to the current arsenal, or even less.
Every day Americans can and should campaign against this dangerous nuclear expansion. And beyond that, we can support what the United States is slowly doing, reducing the risk of nuclear use by reducing global nuclear weapons through good security policy and diplomacy.
We can also support efforts to make our stockpile more secure. In a rare but commendable bipartisan initiative, Congress directed the Biden administration to conduct an internal review of America’s nuclear command-and-control system, including “fail-safe” measures to strengthen protections against the threat of cyber warfare and unauthorized use, not intentionally or unintentionally. of nuclear weapons. The review will be launched in the autumn, and will almost certainly call for new investment to keep the nuclear deterrent safe for as long as it is needed. That will be money well spent by Washington – and something that should be encouraged in every nuclear armed state.
There is no question, the US is currently in competition between China and Russia. In Europe, it is centered on the war in Ukraine and preventing further attacks by Russia on NATO allies. The competition with China is broader: There is a growing military component in the South China Sea and Taiwan, but the economic and technological race is the consequence.
“Winning” this competition requires several investments and increased initiatives, such as supporting conventional military capabilities, leading the artificial intelligence revolution, developing defenses against cyber attacks and developing clean energy alternatives. Making expensive investments in nuclear capabilities beyond what is sufficient to deter them will mean running this race carrying heavy sandbags on our shoulders.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, less is more.
Steve Andreasen was the National Security Council’s staff director for defense policy and arms control from 1993 to 2001. He taught at the University of Minnesota’s school of public affairs.