The Obama-Kennedy Nuclear Policy

The death of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, still unfairly blamed even in his obituaries for Lyndon Johnson's war in Vietnam, ironically removes from the current national dialogue on President Obama's nuclear weapons policy a champion of John F. Kennedy's original dream of a nuclear weapons-free world.

Let us "bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations," said Kennedy in his Inaugural Address in January 1961. "Weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us," he told the United Nations General Assembly later that year. "...No longer is the quest for disarmament a sign of weakness, (nor) the destruction of arms a dream -- it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race."

McNamara supported President Kennedy's decision not to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Crisis or on any other occasion; and JFK's success in ending those crises without initiating a nuclear exchange or even firing a shot convinced all of us who served with him never to rely on nuclear weapons in the future, never, as he put it, "to risk a nuclear war in which the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."

The old Eisenhower-Dulles policy of threatening massive retaliation, he told Congress in January 1963, reflecting upon the Cuban Missile Crisis, "may not deter piecemeal aggression; but a line of destroyers in a quarantine (like that around Cuba) or a division of well-equipped men on a border (like that around West Berlin) may be more useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons beyond all rational need."

In the single best speech of his presidency, delivered at American University's 1963 Commencement, he declared that "the acquisition of idle stockpiles which can only destroy and never create is not the most efficient means of assuring peace."

President Barack Obama made clear in his Prague speech in April of this year that he too has a "commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it." Decades earlier, Obama had specified this same goal in a college student essay. He was not talking at Prague, nor was Kennedy at American University, about unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament, but about an enforceable global nuclear pact, covering Russia as well as China, Israel as well as Iran, both India and Pakistan, and all other present and potential nuclear powers. Achievable not quickly, easily or automatically, but achievable, this pact would depend on comprehensive, invasive and effective inspections, backed by the credible threat of swift, multilateral enforcement.

The same kind of "mad bombers" critical of what they called Kennedy's "no-win policy," who believed that a nuclear exchange in which millions of American dead totaling less than tens of millions of enemy dead would be a proud victory for the United States, are still with us. Richard Perle and Senator Jon Kyl, in a June 30 Wall Street Journal article, urged the United States to keep a nuclear arsenal "for the foreseeable future." President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sought to build even more powerful nuclear "bunker buster" and outer space weapons, contrary to Obama's view and Kennedy's vow. The same crowd opposes ratification of a global treaty to ban nuclear testing, which would be a crucial first step toward realizing the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Even a universal ban, these pessimists and skeptics argue, would be dangerous to U.S. national security, if some day some hostile nation sought an advantage by suddenly secretly testing and preparing for a surprise launch and treaty repudiation. But no nation, large or small, as JFK pointed out, would want to violate and thus terminate a treaty essential to the security of all; and the United States has even greater ability now to detect such tests and preparations. Nor would a potential violator fail to realize that any temporary advantage it might gain by such secret tests or preparations would clearly be far outweighed by the global sanctions, obloquy and isolation it would suffer for such illegal misconduct.

As for America's own military strategy, Kennedy -- a World War II hero, no pacifist -- declared that we have "deliberately chosen to concentrate on more mobile and efficient weapons with lower but entirely sufficient yield," and thus "(our) security would not be diminished by a reduction of our nuclear stockpile."

All Americans gratefully respect the nuclear laboratories and production plants that have contributed so much to our security for so long; but their concern about their future funding must not be allowed to override the long-held convictions of their best scientists that all nations of the world, including our own, would be safer when all nations of the world cease the testing, production and possession of all weapons of mass destruction; and while this is being achieved, a fully adequate U.S. deterrent could be maintained with a sharply reduced number of nuclear weapons in the stockpiles of both the United States and Russia. That step in turn would facilitate the initial items on Obama's nuclear agenda: (a) to safeguard and secure all vulnerable nuclear weapons and material anywhere in the world from falling into the hands of terrorists or failed states; (b) speed the termination of the North Korea and Iran nuclear weapons programs; and (c) enhance and encourage the long-neglected enforcement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as the proposed new ban on making fuel for nuclear arms; all this while the United States ratifies and works to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Such a reduced U.S. arsenal would also be easier and cheaper for us to maintain, to modernize and to make certain of its security and stability.

The critics of the Kennedy-Obama goal of a nuclear weapons-free world like to cite Ronald Reagan. But not his 1984 State of the Union message in which he spoke directly to the people of the Soviet Union: "A nuclear war cannot be won... it must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?" His wife said he "had many hopes...to create a world free of nuclear weapons." Those critics should also be careful about citing Reagan's last two Chiefs of Staff, Howard Baker and Ken Duberstein, his Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, his Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, his National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, his Secretary of State George Schultz and his Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead, all of whom joined in a statement this year by the bipartisan Partnership For a Secure America calling for a "verifiable, irreversible and non-discriminatory fissile material cut-off treaty, a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing, and a reduction of all nuclear arsenals, including our own, to the minimum achievable level."

Other steps on the Obama nuclear agenda include increased U.S. support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency at the Treaty Review Conference next year; and the elimination of unnecessary irritants between the United States and Russia to facilitate the aforementioned mutual reduction of their respective nuclear stockpiles.

This is a formidable number of steps facing Obama to reach the Kennedy dream, involving a host of controversial issues. But the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons is not only a diplomatic issue, although it will require masterful diplomacy; not only a military security issue, although we must keep our conventional weapons ready; and not only a political issue (although the nay-sayers will try to make political hay out of it). It is a moral issue -- indeed, a moral imperative.

Comments

[rhubardpi]

When someone can prove that no nation could build nukes on the sly then "no nukes" will be a great idea........or not.......since their use in 1945 there as been no war between two nations that both have nukes.

[imagine0594]

This was very well written. I really enjoyed Counselor as well, and The Fog of War was an interesting documentary where Robert McNamara gives some great ideas about war, my favorite being that we need to empathize with our enemies, a mistake we made in Vietnam, and one I hope Obama isn't making in Afghanistan.

[TJCole]

Had Obama proposed a 50% reduction with Medevdev of strategic nuclear weapons, we might be on our way to serious nuclear reductions, just due to the extreme expense of maintaining them as you know Mr. Sorensen, this would also have made it easier to keep those, in Russia especially more secure and accounted for...!

I for one would love to see a nuclear weapon free world, but that being said this would have created an example to others who might be on their way to joining the Nuclear club...such as Iran and others from their proliferation...

Russia's weapons also being the world's largest in yield, and MRV'd many ten warheads per nose cone...to compensate for their less accurate missiles ad targeting...

The saber rattling we have heard from Bush, Rice, and Cheney, and most recently the provocations by VP Biden haven't helped on bit in this regard and thus the Russian hunter killer subs off our cost line...

The Russians Play Chess always there is always a reciprocal move...that's how they roll...Sir, so to speak...I hope someone tells our President that some of us grew up staying up late for those reports from Jonathon Sanders 2:00 -3:00 pm and learned from them..

[dieselis]

Idea of a nuclear free world, sounds great. Ain't gonna happen. Rumor has it that Israel planned to nuke the Egyptians in 73. A Russian frigate the lenningrad was poised to give Egypt a warhead to retaliate. Present day India and Pakistan have been dangerously close to a nuclear exchange. It is now and will forever be a pandors's box if unleashed. The breakup of the USSR is not the bonanza its portrayed to be 20+ years later we have nukes "R" us. Sounds like a toy store saving for the fact the weapons are very real. I don't belive man can destoy the Earth. We do have a nack for making living conditions horrible. Mutually Assured Destruction is soooo us.

[bluescat47]

The portrayal of JFK fails to note that he initiated the largest buildup in U.S. history of our nuclear deterrent. All three elements of the triad, ICBM's, long range bombers, and SLBM's. And this was after U-2 and satellite photos had revealed that Khrushchev and the Russians were far behind strategically, despite their boasting. That in turn generated the dangerous arms race of the 1960's and 1970's which eventually led to the SALT negotiations.With JFK, his words are one thing, his deeds another.
The Nuclear Test Ban treaty is a viable idea; and the U.S. and Putin are moving to mutually agreed lower levels of both delivery systems and warheads. But nuclear weapons are not going away. There are no means to monitor and verify a ban on nukes(the level of inspection would have to be so intrusive that few states would allow it) and sanctions on a breakout state are going to be enforced by - who?
Unfortunately, the technological genie is out of the bottle; but the firebreak between nuke and conventional war needs to be strengthened. Nukes are for deterrence - nothing else - not for busting bunkers.

[Brunobear]

I am grateful that the two greatest forces for good on the planet, Britain and the US have their massive nuclear weapons ability and a demonstrated willingness to use them as a warning to would be aggressors against both them, and their close allies such as my country, Australia. What is, is! Humans are capable of deceit and enormous cruelty for personal and group (national) gain and have to be kept in check. The threat of vaporisation is a valuable deterrent, no matter how many troops a high population, would be aggressor, can employ to threaten or attempt to control us. God bless the US Airforce I say. They enable us to sleep peacefully each night.

[alysheba 3]

As a person who lives close enough to the Canadian /American border I do not concur. Canada is not regarded as a threat to other countries. As neighbors, we are close enough to America that the resentment towards American hypocrisy will definitely spill into my country if America is attacked with nuclear weapons.

Obviously you only care about your own corner of the world. I never thought Australians were so selfish!

[Cosatjockomo]

To cite wisdom formed from the reletively balanced cold war conflict between the USSR and USA and apply it to what would be a one sided low risk and absolutely successful neutron bomb annialation of Iran is utter stupidity. The fruits of that victory would not be "ashes" It would be the elimination of a stagnated culture bent on the destruction of an innocent third party (Isreal - well kind-o sorta) country. Use of nukes with the USSR brought with it "mutually assured annialation." No such risk exists with Iran and the neutron bomb is our only hope of stopping their intention to use nukes the second they can develop them. We need to stop them before that happens - not in reponse after they attack Isreal. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" You want to give away our stick and expect anyone to listen to our soft speaking. I want us to get out the biggest stick possible.

[billw8017]

Some 65 million years ago, our ancestors are said to have been quite rat-like proto apes and humanity has completed almost all of its evolution as one species over the most recent 5 million years. This in a universe where a billion years now and then is a trivial number. Clearly, our universe should be swarming with one dominant species that is thousands of years more advanced than we are. It is not. This leads to the conclusion that creation does not evolve much beyond us. Creatures like us do not endure. Once we have the power to destroy ourselves, the rest is just a matter of time.

[Chip W]

Or destroy the planet that supports us.

[billw8017]

Alluding to evolution again, early on life underwent a crisis for oxygen, oxygen being extracted from carbon dioxide by living processes, a waste product and extremely corrosive. it is felt, the spread of living things was curtailed until they could cope with the oxygen. So living things transformed the atmosphere from being largely carbon dioxide to oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and some other gases.

Our sister planet, Venus, still has an atmosphere mostly of carbon dioxide, and its surface temperature is 896 degrees F. As we cut down the jungles and the great forests, there are unusual droughts in the Amazon Valley. The new grasslands have a prospect up picking up where the Sahara leaves off in Africa and becoming a new great desert while unconverted carbon dioxide raises earth's surface temperature.

Nobody believes this. It is simple hysteria, but amusingly possible; amusing because it is terrible and nobody believes it. We worry instead about the profit prospects of industry, grazing land and the lumber trade.

[Garvagh]

The present imperative is to seek a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. This is the policy of the government of Iran and it should be supported by the US.

[alysheba 3]

To bad the US won't support this policy because they will never ask Israel to give up their nukes.

[jackwaddington]

The United States, invented, created and then use nuclear bombs. The irony; it is the nuclear bomb that will eventually destroy the United States (unless economics gets there first). It's psychologically and philosophically inevitable. Sadly, I doubt there are many out there, that see this psychological inevitability.

[zitlight73]

Two nights ago I watched one of my all-time favorite movies for about the fiftyth time, Dr. Strangelove. The first time I saw it I was still in grade school and we were still having duck and cover drills, I thought it was the most outrageous and funny things I ever saw, still do. The last eight year this country has been led by the cigar chomping General Ripper-types aka Curtis LeMays and the Dr. Strangelove aka Edward Tellers who think talking and negogiating threatens their fragile manhood. I was eight years old during the Cuban missile crisis. It was on my birthday President Kennedy spoke to the nation about it, I remember being loaded onto buses and taken to our designated nuclear shelter in Cody Wyo and shown films of nuclear tests. For about two weeks we had these drills at least one a day. I remember having nightmares about those films for decades. We've just survived eight years of an administration that I believe was led by some truly deranged people who may well have patterned their global views after watching the fiction General Ripper. We must get back on the sane track all other presidents have pursued since Kennedy regardless of party global nuclear AND biological disarmament.

[Car84]

Nice. The President in his Prague speech throws us all under the bus by guilt-tripping people in the Truman Administration - all dead by now - who made the decision to use an atomic bomb.

[kjm8888]

So you're saying that we shouldn't feel the smallest amount of guilt or shame for the indiscriminate slaughter of over 200,000 (mostly civilian) men, women and children. What kind of human are you?

[Car84]

I choose not to accept guilt or blame, or feel shame, for something I had absolutely nothing to do with. That's the kind of human I am - a rational one.

[Pulladigm]

Perhaps it is time to stop playing games of upmanship with nuclear weapons. I propose that we publicly, unilaterally begin the dismantling of our nuclear arsenal. We currently have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over. We have more nuclear weapons than any other country on Earth. If we begin with oldest and most obsolete weapons and, over time, reduce our nuclear arsenal by half. We would still have enough weapons to meet any threats with this unthinkable, unacceptable option.
The advantages would be to say, sincerely, to the rest of the world that we are serious about nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. We can approach our former enemies to assist them in dismantling their nukes without them fearing us. We will save billions of dollars that we now spend maintaining our Nukes. We will free thousands of service men and women for redeployment to more essential service. Also, we will have large quantities of fissionable material for peaceful uses.
The only losers in this plan is the manufacturers of nuclear weapons. However, I am sure they can figure other things to do with their facilities.
Perhaps we can sincerely negotiate to share some of fissionable material with Iran so they can stop their enrichment program. A program that could lead to more nuclear weapons.
~;^}>

[JoeCirincione]

A beautifully written and reasoned article. Thank you for your eloquent reminder of what our past presidents hoped to achieve but could not.

Kennedy and Reagan believed, correctly, that these weapons were a security threat, not an asset. They sought their complete elimination, but fell short of the goal. Many of the officials who served in their administrations now support practical steps to reduce and eliminate these threats. Robert McNamara was one of them. His passing is a great loss to these efforts.

[a6intruder]

As a student and teacher of Military History, I can confidently say that the primary thing that kept Stalin and the Russians from overrunning Western Europe in the aftermath of WWII was American nuclear weapons. The "armies" of Europe were incapable of stopping them, the U.S. rapidly stood it's army down, e.g. U.S capability at the start of the Korean War. Mr. Sorensen, you're living in a dream world. Remember, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while reaching for a rock." It's good to have the biggest, most powerful, rock.

[Bladernr1001]

This is our reality. Very good post.

[warrenreportslie]

We continue down this path of primitive thinking, sold to US by the military industrial complex and their corporate affiliates, and ROCKS will be all that is left on planet Earth. No worries, though, we'll have the 'most powerful rock.'

[Bladernr1001]

I suppose you can sit here and think this a plot to sell more bombs by the MIC. But that just shows your naivete about defense, enemy aggression and military strategy.

This is really no different than a bully picking on a weak classmate in a schoolyard. You notice that bully rarely tends to pick on someone with a strong demeanor.

"Bully" country's tend to pick on weak countries. If you want us (and our allies) to be weak then will be all less safe.

I have to laugh sometimes about this site. You all somehow boil everything down to some corporate conspiracy.