New Strategic Arm Reduction Treaty?

[Flash]

Sounds like a great idea: Russia has a long track record of honoring its treaty commitents . . . . Not !!!

They complied very closely with the START treaty that just expired, shockingly enough.

 

[helolumpy]

So, if we tell people we will not respond with nuclear weapons, then world is a safer place, right?????

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/obama-limit-potential-uses-nuclear-weapons/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

 

[scoolbubba]

I'm not understanding the exception. Our nuclear strategy is based on mutually assured destruction. We have tactical nukes but don't use them because of the risk of elevating a conflict. It's a good policy; it's worked for 65 years. Why is it suddenly obsolete?

Did we just hang Israel and South Korea/ Japan out to dry?

 

[mmx1]

I think you misunderstand the policy change; it pledges to not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The exception is that we make no such reservations with rogue states like Iran or the Norks.

 

[ryan1234]

Sounds like a great idea: Russia has a long track record of honoring its treaty commitents . . . . Not !!!

Which is probably why Russia reserves the right to opt out of the treaty - and has reserved the right to opt out of the treaty before (which is generally a provision for all parties).... so what's the point of having a treaty?

Really what is the purpose of having this treaty... just some feel-good fuzzy wuzzy stuff? A government that would use nuclear weapons would more than likely use them with or without a treaty.

A Nuclear free world (aka Utopia) completely under-estimates/disregards the human nature entirely.

 

[exhelodrvr]

A lot of valid points/valid questions raised in this column:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/04/06/unthinking-the-unthinkable/#more-8555

 

[scoolbubba]

I think you misunderstand the policy change; it pledges to not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The exception is that we make no such reservations with rogue states like Iran or the Norks.

Fail on my part for reading comprehension, but I disagree with the exclusion over Chem/Bio warfare. Rogue/ 3rd world states have not attacked with those weapons because they've been treated the same as a nuke. This policy seems to make it easier to 'get away' with a chem or bio attack with no real gain in security for the US.

 

[helolumpy]

I think you misunderstand the policy change; it pledges to not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The exception is that we make no such reservations with rogue states like Iran or the Norks.

So if a non-nuclear country sponsors, conducts or participates in a WMD attack upon the United States (either Chem, Bio or Rad) the U.S. has stated they will not respond in kind with a WMD attack of our own (we only have one WMD in our arsenal; nukes).

It's one thing to make the decision internal to the gov't about what incidents would result in the employment of nuclear weapons, but why tell the world? Why take this off-the-table without any reciprocity from other countries??

I'm not sure if publicizing this policy makes the world safer or more unstable.

 

[exhelodrvr]

So if a non-nuclear country sponsors, conducts or participates in a WMD attack upon the United States (either Chem, Bio or Rad) the U.S. has stated they will not respond in kind with a WMD attack of our own (we only have one WMD in our arsenal; nukes).

It's one thing to make the decision internal to the gov't about what incidents would result in the employment of nuclear weapons, but why tell the world? Why take this off-the-table without any reciprocity from other countries??

I'm not sure if publicizing this policy makes the world safer or more unstable.

Not to worry. We didn't take UN-imposed sanctions off the table.

 

[mmx1]

So if a non-nuclear country sponsors, conducts or participates in a WMD attack upon the United States (either Chem, Bio or Rad) the U.S. has stated they will not respond in kind with a WMD attack of our own (we only have one WMD in our arsenal; nukes).

It's one thing to make the decision internal to the gov't about what incidents would result in the employment of nuclear weapons, but why tell the world? Why take this off-the-table without any reciprocity from other countries??

I'm not sure if publicizing this policy makes the world safer or more unstable.

What we're doing is uncoupling nuclear arms from other WMD, since we're tying it to adherence of NNPT as the standard of responsible conduct. The NYT article says the White House reserves the option of reeadopting nuclear strike against a significant development in biological weapons that would render the US "vulnerable to a devastating strike". Nuclear weapons have been a disproportionate member of the CBRN family.

This policy seems to make it easier to 'get away' with a chem or bio attack with no real gain in security for the US.

If that were true, why not open the nuclear option to any attack on the US? It would make us safer, no?

 

[jmcquate]

The decision to use nuclear weapons was never coupled to events. It is an Executive Branch decision with near unanimous support from the NSC, senior military and congressional leadership. In the case of the Executive Branch being disabled, there is a clear chain of command and PALs to decide upon their use. I don’t see how the White House announcement has changed anything. The policy changes were meant for the United States to be perceived as being less aggressive with regard to the use of nuclear weapons hoping to give us a morally superior negotiating stance with regard to Iran, the NORKs and Russia.

 

[exhelodrvr]

What we're doing is uncoupling nuclear arms from other WMD, since we're tying it to adherence of NNPT as the standard of responsible conduct. The NYT article says the White House reserves the option of reeadopting nuclear strike against a significant development in biological weapons that would render the US "vulnerable to a devastating strike". Nuclear weapons have been a disproportionate member of the CBRN family.


If that were true, why not open the nuclear option to any attack on the US? It would make us safer, no?

That's very simple. Because that wouldn't be believable, and thus would detract from the deterrence in areas where it would be more believable.

 

[exhelodrvr]

The decision to use nuclear weapons was never coupled to events. It is an Executive Branch decision with near unanimous support from the NSC, senior military and congressional leadership. In the case of the Executive Branch being disabled, there is a clear chain of command and PALs to decide upon their use. I don’t see how the White House announcement has changed anything. The policy changes were meant for the United States to be perceived as being less aggressive with regard to the use of nuclear weapons hoping to give us a morally superior negotiating stance with regard to Iran, the NORKs and Russia.

It takes potential use of nuclear weapons "off the table" in certain areas. And any thought that this makes a us MORE "morally superior" to Iran, NorK, and Russia is silly. If, in someone's sight, we aren't already morally superior, this sure won't do it.

 

[Flash]

Which is probably why Russia reserves the right to opt out of the treaty - and has reserved the right to opt out of the treaty before (which is generally a provision for all parties).... so what's the point of having a treaty?

Really what is the purpose of having this treaty... just some feel-good fuzzy wuzzy stuff? A government that would use nuclear weapons would more than likely use them with or without a treaty.

Trust and money.

Serious tensions in the past have resulted in serious misconceptions about the other side's capabilities and intentions, a relevant example with nukes would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. For a few years prior to the crisis there had been a lot of rhetoric in the US about a 'bomber gap' and a 'missile gap' that existed between the US and the USSR, with the US way behind the USSR in the inventories of both. It was known to the US government and the USSR that was a load of bunk but it was certainly a factor in rising tensions between the two. Knowing they were far behind the US the USSR took a gamble and put missile in Cuba, that failed but not before almost sparking a war.

A large part of the point of the subsequent treaties we made with the USSR and Russia was to increase both sides knowledge of their respective inventories, intentions and general capabilities. The ultimate result was increased level of trust on both sides that we weren't planning some sort of surprise attack on each other or had some other nefarious nuclear related plans. The only way these things work though is that both sides follow the treaties, which surprisingly enough with respect to the US and Russia that has generally been the case. The ultimate result of that trust is reduced tensions and a lessened chance of nuclear conflict between the signatories.

Another big reason is money. Like anything else nukes and their delivery systems cost money to design, build, test and deploy. A treaty cutting the amount of weapons saves both sides money, which we could both use.

Ultimately this is a pretty good win-win for both sides. The previous START was closely followed by both sides and gave us great insight into Russia's nuclear arsenal, and vice versa, and it allows us to reduce the amount of arms (money) that we maintain in our arsenal but keeping plenty to still blow the world up if we want to.

Good enough?

 

[jmcquate]

It takes potential use of nuclear weapons "off the table" in certain areas. And any thought that this makes a us MORE "morally superior" to Iran, NorK, and Russia is silly. If, in someone's sight, we aren't already morally superior, this sure won't do it.

I agree, I was stating why I think the White House made the statement.