The situation on the Korean Peninsula demonstrates why the United States does not and cannot make its nuclear policy in a vacuum. Nor should American nuclear policy orient itself around the ossified Cold War framework which largely took only Russia into account. Soaring rhetoric about nuclear zero from President Obama, negotiating New START, further talk of unilateral drawdowns, a Nuclear Posture Review with the stated goal of moving away from reliance on nuclear weapons, an ever-worsening fiscal picture, and deep cuts to the defense budget – all of these at least raise the question of whether the U.S. guarantee of security under its nuclear umbrella is waning. U.S. allies and enemies alike must surely wonder: what would further cuts in the American nuclear arsenal mean? Would the U. S. have either the will or the capability to respond to a regional crisis?
While South Korea is the most likely state that could next seek nukes, it is by no means the only country that would be impacted be a perceived shrinking of the American nuclear umbrella. Indeed, South Korean efforts to re-start a nuclear program would have a significant impact on Japanese thinking. The same is true in the Middle East, where the development of an uncontested Iranian nuclear weapons program would trigger similar questions about American security guarantees among other American allies.Sponsored Ads
Countries seek various methods to compensate for adversaries with larger militaries or nuclear weapons: Alliances or developing their own nuclear weapons. If the US is not going to be there then our allies will seek other methods of compensation such as building their own nuclear weapons.
Obama is really pushing strategic instability by eliminating US nuclear weapons. Doing this at the same time the US has gone into decline is extremely dangerous. This is the age of upheaval.