Wrong Priority

If fifty million Frenchmen can be dead wrong, as the saying goes, so can four very senior statesmen. Over the last two years, George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn--all veterans of the Cold War--have popularized the idea that the best way to protect the world from nuclear weapons is for the United States and Russia to move towards reducing their nuclear stockpiles to zero. The group--variously referred to as "the Quad," the "gang of four," and "the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse"--has gained support for this position from many of the brightest and best minds in the foreign policy business, including Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, and some from the Obama foreign policy shop ("Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy"). And now, the highly regarded Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called on the next president to negotiate with Russia, along the lines the Quad calls for.

If one is not blown away by all this eminence, and refuses to shut down one's critical mind, one soon notes that this approach sets the wrong priorities both in dealing with deproliferation and in dealing with Russia. The most serious threat to our security, that of our allies, and to world peace, is very widely agreed to be that of terrorists getting their hands on a ready-made nuclear weapon. (Making new ones is much more of a challenge for them, although making radiological bombs is not nearly as taxing.) The most likely place terrorists could steal, bribe their way to, or otherwise commandeer nuclear weapons, is a country not even mentioned in either of the Quad's main statements (January 4, 2007; January 15, 2008), nor in many of the admiring accolades that followed: Pakistan.

The notion that if the United States and Russia will live up to their commitments under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires them to eliminate their nuclear arms, other nations will follow, has no foot to stand on. Take, for instance, Pakistan, which keeps some arms in part as a deterrent to the much larger Indian conventional forces, which it cannot match. Hence, even if India gave up its nuclear bombs (a very unlikely event) Pakistan feels it could not follow. The same holds for Israel's stockpile and Iran's plans to build some such bombs. All these nations have strong reasons of their own to hold such arms. They serve as a valuable deterrent, keeping their perceived enemies at bay. This and other reasons will not be modified by whatever the United States and Russia do or do not do regarding their own stockpiles.

When I mentioned this observation to a supporter of the Quad's agenda, an expert on nuclear deproliferation, she responded that at least such superpower disarmament will stop the critics of the West from "whining." Indeed, representatives of several nations, especially India, often argue that because the big powers have not abided by their NPT commitments, they should not be expected to do better. However, the argument that if the United States and Russia behaved better, the rest would follow suit, is akin to suggesting that to deal with a student who routinely fails to bring his homework to class, "because my dog ate it," all that is needed is to take away the dog. Doing so will not make the student fulfill his duty, but merely force him to come up with another excuse.

In dealing with Russia, the greatest priority for the United States is to encourage Russia to further improve its controls over the fissile material from which nukes can be made and of the thousands of tactical nuclear arms Russia possesses. Reducing the Cold War instruments, the long range missiles and strategic nuclear weapons--on which the Quad focuses--are much less of an issue. They are already relatively well-controlled and, moreover, are not well suited for terrorists equipped with speed boats, shipping containers, and trunks, thus dismantling them is much less urgent. Even if these strategic Cold War arms are granted top priority, years will pass before new treaties are negotiated, and even then they will require the approval of the US Senate, which in the past has not been very receptive to new treaties. Next, the United States is keen to gain Russia's cooperation in stopping Iran's nuclear militarization. Neither mission is affected by the extent to which the two powers deal with the Cold War weapons.

In short, one hopes that the new president will not be swayed by that which is popular for now, but will do first that which must be done first: Prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes and rogue states from developing or stock-piling these most dangerous of all weapons of mass destruction.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

Relax everyone. We will keep our best nukes and so will everybody else. There will be plenty of toys around to play "global nuclear war" if we wish to engage in one.

[Michale32086]

That would be "global THERMOnuclear war"... :D

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

I like the movie War Games too!

[research]

For the Foreseeable Future,

until we solve the geopolitical forces that lead to war,

Every nation will probably end up have a handful of nukes.

I cannot imagine most of the nations strategic defense planners going without nuclear deterrent.

I don't like it, But it seems inevitable.

[darthdarcy]

Spot on Amitai; It is Pakistan which represents the most real and likely threat to the world as far as nuclear weapons being used by terrorists or surrogates of their villainous ISI...and the likelihood of this is great every day especially after the Mumbai massacre which I have no doubt elements of the ISI were involved in...

I for one am preparing myself for the reality that we will see nuclear weapons used in that region between India and Pakistan...

Also if the Pakistani government which is so fragile were to fall or it's influence decay in some regions the ISI along with the radical fundamentalists may very well end up with some even just a few of those nuclear warheads and or fissionable materials even...

The ISI must be dealt with disband and it's access to funding cut off..

It is they I believe who would give access to those who would use these horrible weapons for terrorism..

[KillTheMessenger]

The ISI must be dealt with disband and it's access to funding cut off..

Nice program you got there, tiger. Shall we file it under "fairy-tales of foreign policy" or "nightmares a la mode"? That organization is about as likely to disband as the KGB or the CIA.

[jhNY]

Isn't this sort of a macro-scale version of the NRA argument 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'? Whatever the intentions of the gun owners, however responsibly they may wish to comport themselves, the more guns there are around, the more gun mischief is likely to occur, as when little Billy plays cowboy with Daddy's .45, or when Jimmy Home-Owner draws out his .38 to confront a robber and after a brief struggle finds himself the proud owner of a new hole in his chest. Fantasies of prevailing over circumstances via gun power are entrancing to a great many Americans, but nowhere are there more gun deaths than here. And most happen among family members, who usually feel awful about it right after the trigger is pulled, either as shooter or victim.

The nuclear bomb is the greatest evil in the world, destroying the habitat for all life wherever it lands, and for many generations. No political principle is so important that it must be defended by such evil. Better to live in a totalitarian society as a slave than to melt in fissionary position for a principle. Any principle whatsoever. And so responsible people who hope for a future for humanity must work together to see they are destroyed, or better yet, unbuilt-- here, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Israel-- all over the world.

[chaos4700]

While it's all very well to say that, but actually dealing with Pakistan's nuclear armaments isn't all that simple. Especially since Bush has tacitly endorsed a nuclear armed Pakistan, what with billions of dollars in promised military aid, and has openly endorsed a nuclear armed India. Even if we tried to leverage Pakistan into surrendering its arsenal, it would be political suicide (not to mention strategically foolhardy) for them to accede with a hostile neighbor who would still be nuclear armed. Seriously, what are we going to do -- get India to pinky swear that it'll never drop a nuke on Pakistan?

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that Pakistan is hardly the only rogue nuclear-armed state we've shielded. We've pretty much allowed North Korea off the hook for now, and like India, we've already given Israel the "nudge nudge wink wink" about their nukes.

Now, granted, the fact that the US has already allowed nuclear weapons to proliferate is an issue that is too late to deal with. I agree with your premise but to act on it, there needs to be a viable solution and that requires a drastic shift in how the US relates to each and every country who also possesses nuclear arms, not just Pakistan.

[LeftRight]

You're partly right. However, the solution is not to keep ourselves armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on the planet several times over. The solution is to begin to dearm ourselves, and use some of that money freed up to ensure that the world standard of living begins to increase! Once people stop having to worry about whether the "other" is going to take everything that they hold dear, they will be FAR less likely to be concerned about joining terrorist groups!

In addition to this, the USA keeping the nukes that we have (or making more) is not going to DETER anyone! The people that you claim to be worried about, Pakistan, Iran, and Israel, aren't going to be shooting nukes at us! The TERRORISTS that might get their hands on a nuke MIGHT. And they won't CARE if we are ready to destroy them with nukes of our own!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Spot on, as usual!

Note that the same four dinosaurs -- and the mental midgets who still revere their relevance -- sat silent while Pakistan's A.Q. Khan was pardoned by "our guy" Musharraf despite his having sold the bomb to North Korea, Libya, and... IRAN . Worse, Bush approved the pardon.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n11439521


(P.S. Why aren't Etzioni and Krugman in the Obama Admin? And howdy Michale.)

[Mnemanth]

As long as the hungry, the overworked, the oppressed, the needy and needful remain unheard, unaddressed, and consquently wrathful, the world is in danger. That's the priority, but it'll never be addressed. Much easier to keep those masses fearful of the unknown.
"Oooo...the terrorists (aka the Boogie Man) is trying to get their hands on a weapon (aka are coming to get you)!"
You know, if people felt empowered, and had a personal stake in their own protection, and had their needs addressed to the point where they could look beyond themselves to care for their societies...the Boogie Man would have no safe harbor!
Keep preaching fear. Boo!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I agree with your genetral theme on the underpinnings, but that's no reason to leave loose nukes laying about.

You do wear a seatbelt when you drive, no?

[BSERIUS]

Another point not mentioned is calling out the terrorists for who they are ... Radical islam ....

[Michale32086]

Very well said... Couldn't be more right in your assessments...

Michale.....