If anything, reducing the American arsenal is likely to cause the very instability that the U.S. seeks to avoid. Without an American commitment to a strong nuclear deterrent, the country’s friends and allies could develop doubts about where the U.S. stands and what it would do to safeguard its own interests and theirs.
Many other nations depend on U.S. nuclear-security assurances and could come to question whether further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal—and an American political leadership that prizes disarmament posturing over the hard work of counter-proliferation—can credibly protect them against proliferators and other threats.
Corker and Inhofe: ‘Nuclear Zero’ Offers Nothing Worth Having – WSJ.com
The authors are right about this instability, but it’s already too late. Unless the US has an arsenal big enough to launch multiple independent strikes over several years, then it isn’t big enough. The key to deterrence is making it personal. Enemy leaders, like those in Russia and China, must know that ultimately they (personally) cannot survive attacking the US. Right now they (the leaders) can survive, so the US has already crossed the line into instability. Also, it’s not so much the number of warheads that matter. It’s the delivery vehicles. If you can’t get a bomb to its target, then it’s not all that good, is it? Right now the US is short of delivery vehicles.
The U.S.’s Threat To Pakistan
The Pakistan high command believed that the U.S. does not want a Moslem country to possess nuclear weapons and will at some time in the future attempt to seize or destroy its arsenal. Since September of 2001, much of the American military action has been directed towards Moslem states. As the sole nuclear Islamic country, that convinces the Pakistanis that they too will be targeted.
Washington worries that Pakistan with a number of terrorist organizations supported by the Inter-Service Intelligence is the one place where terrorists would be the most likely to acquire a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. A high ranking official of the Inter Service Intelligence told The Atlantic for a December 2011 article on the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, “You must trust us that we have maximum and impenetrable security. No one with ill intent can get near our strategic assets.”
Is Pakistan’s Nuclear Security On The Verge Of A ‘Meltdown’? | Economy Watch
Do you trust Pakistan? I think a lot of things about Pakistan, and trust is not one of them.
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.
Global Zero Nuclear Proposal Would Make U.S. More Vulnerable
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.
It’s not what you don’t see that will get you into trouble. It’s what you see but don’t understand that will do it.
In the case of nuclear terrorism, it’s not a rogue group that manages to get its hand on a nuclear bomb or material that is the problem. It’s a terror sponsoring state with nuclear weapons that is the problem. That means for the most part we have to wait until Iran gets nuclear weapons for nuclear terrorism to start. Yes, the rogue group scenario is possible, but it is less likely.
Interestingly, world leaders focus on nuclear terrorism while pretty much ignoring nuclear war.
World leaders have called for closer co-operation to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism at a summit on nuclear security in Seoul.
A communique at the end of the summit reiterated a joint call to secure “vulnerable nuclear material”.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a “grave threat”, while US President Barack Obama said action was key.
BBC News – World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat’
In years to come – assuming, for the purposes of argument, there are any years to come – scholars will look back at President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit and marvel. For once, the cheap comparisons with 1930s appeasement barely suffice: To be sure, in 1933, the great powers were meeting in Geneva and holding utopian arms-control talks even as Hitler was taking office in Berlin. But it’s difficult to imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938 hosting a conference on the dangers of rearmament, and inviting America, France, Brazil, Liberia and Thailand …but not even mentioning Germany.
Mark Steyn: Obama’s nuke summit dangerously delusional | nuclear, obama, summit – Opinion – The Orange County Register
This warning, along with an announcement that Iran would join the world’s nuclear club within a month, raised the pitch of Iranian anti-US rhetoric to a new high Tuesday, April 13, as 47 world leaders gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit. The statement published by Kayhan said: “If the US strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America’s main cities.” For the first time, debkafile’s military sources report, Tehran indicated the possibility of passing nuclear devices to terrorists capable of striking inside the United States.
DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security