How Many Times Over Do We Need to Be ...

How Many Times Over Do We Need to Be Able to Destroy the World?

by Mark Luedtke

If China had had nuclear weapons in 1931, Japan would not have invaded Manchuria. The rape of Nanking would never have happened. If France, Britain and the Soviet Union had had nuclear weapons, Germany would not have attacked them. If the US had had nuclear weapons, Japan would not have bombed Pearl Harbor. WWII would never have happened. Nearly all of the 72 million casualties of WWII would have lived full, happy lives. The destruction of the European continent would never have happened, civilization would be more advanced, and all the people of the world would be wealthier. As illustrated by the name Cold War, nuclear arsenals are the most effective deterrent against invasion known to man and save lives by deterring aggression between the major powers in the modern world. That's why every nation covets them.

But how many times over do we need to be able to destroy the world to have an effective nuclear deterrent?

President Obama and Russian President Medvedev recently signed a treaty reducing the strategic nuclear arms of both countries. Unfortunately the text of the treaty has yet to be published so we only have the word of government officials, professional liars all, to go on, but reports consistently claim that both the US and Russia will reduce deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 and the number of deployed delivery platforms - ICBMs, submarines and heavy bombers - to 700. Both countries have additional tactical nuclear warheads that aren't addressed by the treaty. If the 1,550 number is accurate, and that seems likely since we'll soon see the text, that's a 30 percent reduction from the levels President Bush negotiated with Russian President Putin in 2002. That means we'll only be able to destroy the 100 biggest cities in Russia 15 times over instead of 20 times over.

It's hard to criticize this, and watching Republicans try is entertaining. Ralph Peters is unhappy because the Russians only had that many useful weapons anyway. We will give up working weapons, but Russia won't. But Peters doesn't explain why that matters. He doesn't claim it makes us vulnerable. As a veteran Cold Warrior, he just wants to make Russia weaker. Other Republicans have claimed the treaty makes us look weak. I'd like to know how.

Another criticism of the treaty is based on the status of US missile defense. Medvedev announced that the treaty is based on the status quo including missile defense, and if that changes, he reserves the right to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims the text of the treaty in no way limits missile defense development or deployment. Assuming the Obama administration is telling the truth because we'll see the text of the treaty soon, Medvedev must be working public opinion to stop the US from deploying missile defense in Eastern Europe ostensibly to protect Europe from an Iranian missile.

Republicans seem to be gravitating to this criticism, but it's unfounded too. Every country has the power to unilaterally pull out of a treaty that is no longer in its interest. A withdrawal clause was built into the first START treaty. Besides which, we shouldn't provide missile defense welfare to Europe. Europe is wealthier and more populous than the US and just as technologically advanced. If Europeans want missile defense, they can develop it on their own. If they want to buy American technology to develop it faster, we should sell it. But American taxpayers shouldn't subsidize Europe's welfare states by providing missile defense.

A more reasonable criticism of the treaty is that it restricts the US from developing new nuclear warheads. Our warheads are modern enough today, but they should be updated over time for safety and to respond to changing security concerns. But we don't have any money to develop new warheads right now anyway. This shouldn't stop anybody from voting to ratify this treaty. We have to fix our economic and fiscal problems before we worry about developing new warheads.

Republicans have also criticized Obama's updated policy for using nuclear weapons, but that's a separate issue and should have no bearing on the ratification of the treaty. In one major change, Obama ruled out a nuclear first strike in response to a chemical or biological attack against the US. Critics claim this unilateral disarmament might invite a lunatic leader to use WMD against us when they wouldn't have before. That's ridiculous for two reasons. First, the US has an overwhelming conventional deterrent. A small part of the US military rolled over Saddam Hussein and the fourth largest military in the world in less than three weeks. Second, if the American people demanded a nuclear response in the wake of a massive biological or chemical attack, Obama's policy would be ripped to shreds, and everybody knows it.

Critics claim Obama's policy weakens our nuclear umbrella over allies, but the effectiveness of that umbrella is grossly exaggerated. Except for fanatics, economic self-interest is the real deterrent. Governments don't start nuclear wars because there's nothing to gain. Starting a nuclear war would dramatically depress the world economy, including the economy of the attacker, for years. The attacker would suffer isolation and poverty that would make North Korea look cosmopolitan. And you can't conquer territory glowing with radiation. In the case of a nuclear armed country invading an ally supposedly under our umbrella, only a lunatic would start a nuclear war in response. Our nuclear umbrella didn't deter the Soviets from invading Europe. The costs of conventional war against combined European and US forces made it unprofitable. Assumptions that our nuclear umbrella has deterred others from attacking our allies cannot be proved, and I doubt they're correct. In the example from the forum center, it's far more likely Baker's specific threat to topple Saddam if he used WMD kept him from doing so.

I congratulate President Obama on finally doing something good for America.

--

References:

Obama and Medvedev's nuclear arms reduction. Ralph Peters on the deal.

In 1991, Secretary of State Baker threatened to topple Saddam if he used WMD against US forces.

New START treaty.

There's been much praise and criticism for Obama's nuclear arms treaty with Russia, which seems kind of silly since nobody has read the agreement.

This criticism of Obama's nuclear treaty seems spurious. I find this criticism from the Heritage Foundation misguided as well.

Nice fact-box on nuclear powers.