No Nukes: Nonsense

A number of recent studies have purported to prove that nuclear weapons no longer serve an important strategic purpose for the United States. This view animates much of the push for “Global Zero,” the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons from the earth. While nuclear disarmament has a long history, the current push could be said to have begun in earnest at the end of the Cold War…

For example, former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Les Aspin, who would become the Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, gave a series of speeches in 1992 in which he claimed the US would be better off if all nuclear weapons could be eliminated given our preponderance of conventional capability.

A colleague also told me of a debate he had with the late former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara nearly a decade ago. The former Johnson administration official argued that if the US were attacked with nuclear weapons from terrorists, for example, what good would our nuclear arsenal be? “We could not use it” he was quoted as saying.

Thus, so the argument goes, nuclear weapons serve little purpose in a world where the threat comes from terrorists with nuclear weapons rather than states armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed bombers. When I pressed our former UN and Russian ambassador Thomas Pickering what threat Iran armed with nuclear weapons posed, he replied that “deterrence” took care of the threat. Missing from his conclusion, however, was the deadly threat of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons using a surrogate terror group as the means of delivering a nuclear weapon in an American city.

Given we are not yet confident enough to rely on nuclear forensics to determine the origin of a nuclear weapons used in an attack, we are faced with moving quickly toward a world without nuclear weapons or a world where we maintain nuclear deterrence in the most effective and robust manner possible. In short, nuclear weapons do matter.

As our Strategic Commander General Chilton told a National Defense University Foundation and National Defense Industrial Association sponsored luncheon audience of over 100 on the 16^th of September, if both the US and an adversary have 100 fighter planes, 15 attack submarines, 300 artillery pieces, 50 cruisers and carriers, but that adversary also has 20 nuclear weapons, and the US has none, who runs the show? “Nuclear weapons matter”, he emphasized.

I asked the General, “In your prepared remarks you talked about all three sides of the strategic nuclear Triad. But what we know is we won’t be able to afford modernizing all three at the same time, and there will be much debate. I wonder if you could provide some insight on how that debate will be framed and what the drivers will be as we decide which one to modernize first?”

Well, I think the greatest challenge facing America – you hit it on the head, Peter – is funding, when it comes to these areas. I’ll quote a colleague of mine from another country that – an ally – who has a nuclear deterrent capability, without naming names. It was interesting, in our dialogue one day we were talking about the challenges we have in advocating for the nuclear deterrent in general.

And his position was, simply stated, and he stated this to his political leadership, if we had only one dollar left in the defense department to spend on defense, he said, I would advocate vociferously that that dollar be spent on the nuclear deterrent. Because it truly does underpin the defense posture of the nation, whether it be our nation, or in this case, his particular nation. It is the backbone, the backstop, the foundation – I don’t care how you want to describe it – to the power and the confidence that the leadership of this nation demands and desires.

Put another way, who was alive in ’85, the Reagan time period? What was our vision then? What was our vision then? A 600-ship navy, a 40 fighter wing air force. I don’t know how big the Army was supposed to be, but I’ll bet it had at least 10 armored divisions and full supporting equipment to sustain it. That was the vision.

I’ll give that to the United States today: 600 ships, 40 fighter wings, I’d even give it 100 B-2 bombers. And then I’ll take away its nuclear deterrent and give 20 nuclear weapons to – you pick the country in the Western Hemisphere, and you tell me who the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere is? Who can be deterred? Who can be dissuaded? Who can be compelled? We would fall into that category.

That is how I believe it’s kind of the fundamental nature of the deterrent. So, as we go forward to look at what it is we need to do in the nuclear deterrent area, yes there will be great debates and it’s going to be important that we have them and that we prioritize. But we must go forward.