FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Caging the Cold War Monster

by DAVID KRIEGER

and STANLEY SHEINBAUM

Throughout the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was at the heart of US nuclear policy. But deterrence has some important limitations that make it highly unreliable, particularly in a time of terrorism. The most critical shortcoming of nuclear deterrence is that the threat of even overwhelming retaliation is not credible against extremist groups that cannot be located. Further, even a credible threat of nuclear retaliation would not be effective against an enemy that was suicidal. Simply put, an enemy that is not locatable or that is suicidal cannot be deterred, no matter how large a country’s nuclear arsenal or how clear its threats of retaliation.

The decreasing value of deterrence in the post-Cold War period has been recognized by a bipartisan group of former high-level US officials, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn. They have argued in a seminal Wall Street Journal article that reliance on nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence “is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

Going back to 1984, Ronald Reagan argued in his State of the Union Message, “A nuclear war can never be won, and must never be fought.” Reagan concluded, “The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

The bottom line is: Nuclear weapons do not make us safer. US reliance on these weapons sets the standard for the world. Right now the US appears content to promote nuclear double standards, one standard for ourselves and our friends and another for our perceived enemies. For example, the US is seeking to bend the international non-proliferation rules for India, a country that has developed and tested nuclear weapons, while threatening to attack Iran for enriching uranium, which it claims is for nuclear energy development.

The problem is that double standards do not hold up ­ not with children and not with nations. So long as the US government continues to rely upon nuclear weapons for security, other nations will also do so, and eventually these weapons will further proliferate, end up in the hands of terrorists and be used with devastating consequences.

Some people believe that we must wait until nuclear weapons are used again before policy makers will realize the critical need to eliminate this danger. We disagree with this view. We believe that humans are capable of using their imaginations, foreseeing the likelihood of future nuclear weapons use in a world in which deterrence is not effective, and acting with determination to prevent such a catastrophe.

What should we do? First, the US must lead the way by working with Russia to reduce nuclear dangers and then convening the other nuclear weapons states for a common effort to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Such a plan is far more pragmatic than utopian. What is truly in the realm of fantasy is the belief that nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war can be prevented by continuing with business as usual.

Since US leadership is essential, the US needs either new nuclear policies or new leaders and most likely both. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has developed an Appeal to the Next President of the United States that calls for US leadership “in convening and leading the nations of the world” to take the following seven steps:

* Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status;

* Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons;

* Initiate a moratorium on research and development of new nuclear weapons;

*Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

*Bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control;

*Commence good faith negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons; and

*Reallocate resources from nuclear armaments to alleviating poverty, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities.

Achieving these goals will not be easy, but they are essential. The Appeal has already been endorsed by the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and many other leading world citizens.

A world free of nuclear weapons is a goal that demands our high-priority commitment and our country’s best efforts. Each of us on the planet shares in the responsibility to prevent future nuclear catastrophes. If we fail, the future will not be bright. If we succeed, we will leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

DAVID KRIEGER is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Stanley K. Sheinbaum is a former Regent of the University of California.

 

 

 

 

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail