The Global Zero Nuclear Policy Commission Report recently proposed that the United States cut the total number of its nuclear warheads to 900 from today’s level of about 1,700. In his most recent blog, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs visiting fellow Peter Huessy argues that this nuclear posture would make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.
Yet dismantling hundreds of nuclear weapons is not enough for the supporters of the Global Zero. They also propose de-alerting remaining warheads. Not only is it unlikely that U.S. adversaries would follow the U.S.’s example, but proponents of the Global Zero would be the first ones to argue that re-alerting would exacerbate a potential crisis. De-alerting would deprive U.S. policymakers of options to signal intent and willingness to resolve before a crisis becomes disaster. This would impact not only U.S. security but also that of our allies, as the U.S. provides nuclear security guarantees to more than 30 nations around the world.Sponsored Ads
Please note that the 900 nuclear weapons would consist of 450 deployed nuclear weapons and 450 in reserve. Then they propose to put the nuclear weapons in reserve on a de-alert status. There isn’t an exact definition of “de-alert”, but it is generally thought to mean a decrease in operational readiness.
The Global Zero crowd thinks they are making the world safer by its actions. Their focus is solely on accidental nuclear war, because they know that non-accidental nuclear is impossible. Due to the rise of modern liberalism, it is thought that hostile countries will only react to the US. So unless the US launches a nuclear attack, then it is impossible to suffer a nuclear Pearl Harbor.