More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Joe Cirincione

GET UPDATES FROM Joe Cirincione
 

Six Essential Truths about U.S. Nuclear Policy

Posted: 01/08/12 06:17 PM ET

Phil Taubman writes in the Sunday New York Times what many people in Washington think about our outdated nuclear policy, but few say. He makes six key points.

Taubman knows what he is talking about, having spent years as the Times bureau chief in Moscow and Washington. He has spent the last three years writing a critically acclaimed book, The Partnership, that tracks the efforts of five former Cold Warriors to change the policies they once championed but they now see as outdated, dangerous, and counter to U.S. national security interests.

He is stunned by the grip that Cold War thinking still has in Washington. "Over the last three years, as I delved into the world of American nuclear weapons," he says, "I felt increasingly as though I had stepped into a time warp."

He is frustrated that President Obama's officials have not implemented the policies the president declared in Prague in April 2009.

Barack Obama took office determined to change that. He has made progress on many fronts. Last week, he outlined a new, no-frills defense strategy, downsizing conventional forces. He now needs to double down on his commitment to refashion nuclear forces. He should trim the American nuclear arsenal by two-thirds to bring it down to a sensible size, order the Pentagon to scale back nuclear war-fighting plans so they are relevant to contemporary threats, remove most American intercontinental, land-based missiles from high alert and drop the quaint notion that a fleet of aging B-52 bombers can effectively deliver nuclear weapons to distant targets.

Here are the six key take-aways from Taubman's analysis:

  1. The Defense Department remains enthralled by cold war nuclear strategies and practices.
  2. There is not a national security rationale for an arsenal of some 5000 warheads.
  3. The U.S. could live quite securely with fewer than 1500 warheads, half in reserve.
  4. This agenda is not only desirable, it is doable without undercutting American security.
  5. If Obama pushes back against the defenders of the old order at the Pentagon, he can preserve American security and make U.S. a more credible leader.
  6. There is a high-powered, bipartisan alliance that will provide political support as Obama reshapes nuclear policy while running for a second term.

I agree with all these points. In fact, I have written a similar analysis that will be published later this week. But do yourself a favor and read Taubman's full article. And then go write your representatives to demand they do something about this.

 

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Phil Taubman writes in the Sunday New York Times what many people in Washington think about our outdated nuclear policy, but few say. He makes six key points. Taubman knows what he is talking about, ...
Phil Taubman writes in the Sunday New York Times what many people in Washington think about our outdated nuclear policy, but few say. He makes six key points. Taubman knows what he is talking about, ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leadsled
Love-child of the ghosts of FDR and Napoleon
11:44 AM on 01/09/2012
These statements are entirely inaccurate. 1500 warheads would not be sufficient to deter both Russia and China simultaneously. 1500 would seriously reduce our first strike survivability. The problem with the thinking in this article is that it is trapped in thinking that present circumstances will continue into the future. In 1930 basically no one would have predicted that the US would be in a massive war with Germany and Japan scarcely a decade later. A single regime change in Russia or contest over Taiwan could bring about seriously changed geopolitical circumstances in a matter of weeks. We need to have capacities not based on what threats we can imagine facing today but on what threats would could possibly face 20 years from now.
09:06 PM on 01/08/2012
You can not uninvent anything. And to consider it unilaterally is not a rational act.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
the pilgrim has landed
11:35 PM on 01/08/2012
I didn't see this as like Reagan's Reykjavik delusion. It is just a drawing down of arsenals, not disarmament.
08:14 AM on 01/09/2012
The problem is 'how much'. And of course getting the press on board with the multibillion dollar effort it would take to decommission them. The DoD spends anywhere from 4-7 billion dollars a year maintaining the stockpile they have and decommissioning the older units as they roll off the inventory.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
Don't settle for less evil, demand good
09:46 AM on 01/09/2012
That's a fine example of the authors point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skwan91607
Favor to Internationalism
08:38 PM on 01/08/2012
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS AND NUCLEAR WARHEADS.
There are more or less about 10,000 nuclear warheads existed around the globe. The contaminations Just 200 of them will make this world difficult to breath, not mentioned to live. "Congratulation" human has the tools to kill themselves entirely for 50 times. It makes completely NO Sense to build stuffs to destroy where we live. There are somethings VERY WACKY. to see that to what extent Americans need 5000 war heads in stock for. Americans should be aware of that 5000 its safety, not a few from other countries. There are a lot of way getting burn by playing with FIRE.
07:21 PM on 01/08/2012
The geo-strategic usefulness of nuclear weapons is the same as it has been since 1953: to prevent any nation from blackmailing the United States. Nuclear weapons prevent other powerful states from threatening the use of military force against the USA, and they prevent enemy nations or alliances from disrupting economic, trade or security networks. They force enemies to limit their geo-strategic actions to: 1) threats and propaganda, 2) limited war away from US shores, and 3) diplomatic activity. Nuclear weapons guarantee that the ACTUAL use of effective war-waging force against the United States and its allies remains only a threat, or at most, very limited in scope.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
11:39 PM on 01/11/2012
And how would 1500 be less useful than 5000
07:10 PM on 01/08/2012
What is the national security benefit of having ANY nuclear weapons? It's not like we can stop anyone elses nukes with ours. They serve only 2 purposes; 1) To anihilate the civilian population of an enemy city (or even entire country if we use multiple nukes) 2) To take revenge on another nation for attacking us with nuclear weapons. So use 1 is terrorism and use 2 is revenge, both prety petty and completely unnecessary strategicaly. A nuclear weapon serves absolutely no legitimate tactical purpose in modern warfare. We need to get rid of all nukes, everywhere, not just Iran's.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
07:36 PM on 01/08/2012
1 is not terrorism. It is a threat that waging war would lead to prompt and certain destruction, and thus should influence the policy of potential warmakers. Credibility gaps exist given recent warmaking faux pas from the US.

As to whether it has much relevance in the 21st century is debatable, but there may be a time when the USA's and Russia's strategic arsenals again avert more serious conflicts.
11:20 PM on 01/08/2012
It is terrorism, by using fear of anihilation to influence another nation.Using fear as a weapon is terrorism by it's very deffinition, that's why it's called "Terror"-ism. So is saying "if you make war against us, not only will we destroy you,but we will kill thousands to milliions of innocent civilians as well." Killing innocent civilians,or threatening to, in order to affect the policy of a government is terrorism. If it's not than all the suicide bombings of funerals or at mosques or churches are ligitimate military actions.
GHarry
Kitty wrangler
06:57 PM on 01/08/2012
No mystery here. America's hoarding of absurd numbers of nuclear weapons vastly enriches some of the usual suspects in the military-industrial complex, companies that have operated in this arena for several decades -- and who know how to make effective "campaign contributions" to well-placed politicians.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
Don't settle for less evil, demand good
09:48 AM on 01/09/2012
How many Colonels would have to go if the nukes were reconfigured for defense rather than career purposes?