New Strategic Arm Reduction Treaty?

[scoolbubba]

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

Apples and oranges. We've always lumped CBR weapons into the same category as Nukes. They are cheaper, harder to track as far as proliferation, and readily available. They are the ace up the sleeve of a nation incapable of affording a nuclear program, which was why we always treated them the same way. It was an extension of MAD, and it worked. Why the change? How does this increase our security or reduce the likelihood of said weapons' use?

It doesn't.

I fail to see how tying one of our arms behind our back makes us safer. I guess we can feel better about ourselves, right up to the point a state sponsored terrorist unleashes a chemical or biological attack on one of our subway systems.

 

[ryan1234]

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?

I understand what you're saying...

However... there are many things to consider. The cold war was maintained and ultimately ended because of (IMHO) a build up of arms. Also, in my opinion... I'm not sure that an 'industrial war' is something that is in the near future, but it is still possible - The Center for Security policy points out that Russia is upgrading 80% of it's strategic military force. The other question is who poses the larger threat: Countries that would adopt a treaty or the 'rogue states'?

International enforcement has been... well.... questionable and hardly efficient. Examples of the lack of support internationally for Saddam's non-compliance, North Korea, and Iran are unfortunate but true.

The world prior to 1945 (the non-nuclear) world was not an example of international peace and good will, nor can the nuclear weapon be uninvented.

 

[Pariel]

...nor can the nuclear weapon be uninvented.

Sure it can, if we just use enough of them now...

 

[mmx1]

Apples and oranges. We've always lumped CBR weapons into the same category as Nukes. They are cheaper, harder to track as far as proliferation, and readily available. They are the ace up the sleeve of a nation incapable of affording a nuclear program, which was why we always treated them the same way. It was an extension of MAD, and it worked. Why the change? How does this increase our security or reduce the likelihood of said weapons' use?

It doesn't.

I fail to see how tying one of our arms behind our back makes us safer. I guess we can feel better about ourselves, right up to the point a state sponsored terrorist unleashes a chemical or biological attack on one of our subway systems.

So who would you nuke if that happened? If 9/11 had been perpetrated with a dirty bomb or a chemical weapon, would you have nuked Kabul? If the Northeast blackout in 2003 had been the result of a Chinese cyberattack, would you have nuked Beijing? Training for CBRN is lumped together for the technical requirements of protecting against it, but the weapons are by no means identical in magnitude.

Chemical weapons are terrible in their effects but are not very powerful weapons on the scale of nuclear weapons. Both chemical and biological have not proven to be particularly more effective than conventional weapons in actual usage. Biological weapons pose the potential of widespread societal damage - but that is still a theoretical risk that rests on finding a sweet spot of lethality versus incubation time. It's because of the potential for a societally devastating biological weapon that the White House reserved the option of returning to the nuclear option if such a threat developed.

The stability of MAD rests on the mutual destruction of both parties by nuclear weapons (the name kind of gives it away). There is no such threat by chemical or radiological weapons and is a theoretical possibility for biological weapons. You can't just "extend" it as a response to other weapons that don't threaten mutual destruction. Threatening a nuclear response to CBR can't be an extension of MAD, unless your idea of MAD is "we will nuke you if you do X". Which clearly fails if that threat fails to be credible - as exhelodriver pointed out for a nuclear reaction to a conventional strike. So is a nuclear response to a cyberattack credible? To an chemical attack that kills 13 people (as in the sarin gas attack in Tokyo)? 130 people? 1300 people?

However... there are many things to consider. The cold war was maintained and ultimately ended because of (IMHO) a build up of arms.

So what? How is that applicable to today? Who are we trying to bankrupt (other than ourselves) by an arms buildup?

Also, in my opinion... I'm not sure that an 'industrial war' is something that is in the near future, but it is still possible - The Center for Security policy points out that Russia is upgrading 80% of it's strategic military force.

An excellent reason to renew START

International enforcement has been... well.... questionable and hardly efficient. Examples of the lack of support internationally for Saddam's non-compliance, North Korea, and Iran are unfortunate but true.

The world prior to 1945 (the non-nuclear) world was not an example of international peace and good will, nor can the nuclear weapon be uninvented.

Which is precisely why non-proliferation depends on the cooperation of the nations that already possess the knowledge and/or the materials. It is impossible to pursue unilaterally.

 

[mmx1]

Or, if you'd rather set your opinion by fealty to a deceased actor:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-08/reagan-would-approve/

 

[Fog]

Well, at least the Great Leader hasn't proclaimed "Peace in our time" yet. If that happens, I'm headed to New Zealand or Chile.

 

[A4sForever]

I wonder if the PREZ will ask the US Senate:

"Please pass the SALT .... "???

Just a play on words ... nothing to look at here ...

 

[Flash]

...... I'm not sure that an 'industrial war' is something that is in the near future, but it is still possible - The Center for Security policy points out that Russia is upgrading 80% of it's strategic military force. .

Russia's industrial capacity is a pathetic shadow of what is once was, and the 80% figure is probably nothing more than wishful thinking.

International enforcement has been... well.... questionable and hardly efficient. Examples of the lack of support internationally for Saddam's non-compliance, North Korea, and Iran are unfortunate but true.

If you are talking about adherence to the START treaty specifically, both countries have followed the treaty very closely.

 

[ryan1234]

It seems like you guys are under the impression that fewer nuclear weapons equals a more peaceful world. Is this true?

May a decline in nuclear weapons result in an increase in conventional weapons for the security needs of any given state? Fear of nuclear war has kept a small peace... and few have actually seen nuclear war, where as the world has plenty of experience with conventional weapons.

Conventional deterrence is a fragile and problematic situation (and many believe there is not such a thing), it is hard to determine strategic outcomes for governments. Conventional deterrence rests its premise on the fear of no success, while nuclear deterrence rests its premise on the fear of punishment.

If money were the key motivation to nuclear disarmament, would it save money to employ a credible conventional army for security needs of conventional deterrence? How large would that force need to be.... bigger, more technologically advanced than the enemy, right?

One of the advantages of nuclear weapons is that they offer somewhat more strategic certainty, when used rationally.

How would India and Pakistan do if they only maintained conventional deterrence postures?... or Israel and Iran...

 

[phrogdriver]

You don't need a whole bunch of nukes to serve as a deterrent, only enough of the right kind. Is the threat of 10000 warheads that much different than 1000? If the 1000 didn't scare your crazy ass, 10000 won't either.

On the other hand a greater number of warheads means a greater likelihood of diversion either from our arsenal, or much more likely, from that of Russia.

Reducing the total number of warheads does reduce the capability of either the US or Russia to conduct a surprise attack and be sure of wiping out the other's ability to retaliate. If you know that the other side can't be sure of being able to do that, it reduces the need for you to stay on a higher, and thus more dangerous, level of alert.

I don't believe in a nuclear-free world, but a reasonable reduction in the total numbers is, purely on its face, a good thing.

...now if the rumors of us giving away the farm on missile defense to get this are true, I'll reconsider. But in itself, this is goodness.

 

[m26]

Is it possible the restrictions on our use of nuclear weapons could be intended to prevent talk of "defensive nukes"? By that I mean if we say that we won't attack non-nuclear countries, smaller countries can't say "we need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves/even playing field/etc."

Also, if a non-nuclear country X attacked us with WMDs and we felt a nuclear retaliation was in order, what is to stop the president from saying "I changed my mind" and pressing the button?

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this front can enlighten me.

 

[phrogdriver]

Is it possible the restrictions on our use of nuclear weapons could be intended to prevent talk of "defensive nukes"? By that I mean if we say that we won't attack non-nuclear countries, smaller countries can't say "we need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves/even playing field/etc."

Also, if a non-nuclear country X attacked us with WMDs and we felt a nuclear retaliation was in order, what is to stop the president from saying "I changed my mind" and pressing the button?

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this front can enlighten me.

The first point is somewhat valid. If any WMD merits massive retaliation, then some will say, "In for a dime, in for a dollar," and get nukes.

The second, not so much. The whole point of nukes is not to have to use them, i.e. make everyone else worry about massive retaliation. If they question our will to use them, at all, the deterrent effect is greatly reduced, and risk of a war goes up, not down.

 

[Pepe]

Anyone know how the talks are going? Probably not. Looks like most of the summit is Closed Press. So much for that transparent gov't we were promised.

 

[Brett327]

Anyone know how the talks are going? Probably not. Looks like most of the summit is Closed Press. So much for that transparent gov't we were promised.

Transparency doesn't equal TMZ style "all access" reporting.

Brett