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.




 


 

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail