ABSTRACT
Introduction The political utility of nuclear weapons has come under increased scrutiny since the end of the Cold War. With the Soviet Union and the United States no longer at an alert standoff, some believe nuclear weapons no longer serve any purpose relative to national security. This is not the case. Those who believe in nuclear disarmament are discounting the historical reality that the world has been safe from great power war since nuclear weapons have become part of the military arsenal. Not only have nuclear weapons deterred nuclear war, but they have, and will continue to deter large-scale conventional war in a dangerous world. This chapter will examine the political utility of nuclear weapons in three sections. In the first section, there is an examination of current arguments in support of nuclear disarmament. There are myriad voices, authors, and think tanks pushing an agenda of a global nuclear “zero.” Consideration will be given to those who believe nuclear weapons no longer serve a purpose, and to those who believe the United States should lead the world into nuclear total disarmament. Their prevailing arguments will be outlined and analyzed. There are those who argue that nuclear weapons only deter nuclear war. There are also those who believe nuclear weapons are not a cost-effective portion of the military arsenal, and that American treasure should be spent elsewhere. Third, some believe nuclear weapons create instability in the world, and that nuclear proliferation, particularly among rogue states and/or violent non-state actors is the greatest threat to US national security in the current day. Effectively, this is the idea that nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place. Last, and potentially most important, there are those who support the idea that the American people could never stomach the use of nuclear weapons. It is an argument with some credibility. Why should the US have nuclear weapons if it will not use them? With the arguments in support of nuclear disarmament established, an examination in response to each will be offered. The second section of this chapter provides counter arguments to the “views of others” outlined in the first section. First, an analysis of history will examine the effects of nuclear weapons. By reviewing the history of war in the twentieth century, an assessment of the utility of nuclear weapons is offered. Who has
nuclear weapons? What have been the effects? Next, there is a review of the cost of continuing to maintain a nuclear arsenal in relation to large-scale conventional conflict and other American spending. This comparison sheds light on the country’s perceived priorities. Third, the idea that nuclear weapons make the world unstable and/or unsafe, leading to greater potential for conflict, is reviewed. There is a review of historical case studies, potential for future threats, and the insinuated effect of nuclear weapons. Last, the argument that the United States will never use nuclear weapons is important. Should they remain an option for the national command authority? Following this section in support of the political utility of nuclear weapons, this chapter concludes with policy recommendations, such as whether to maintain a nuclear arsenal, the ramifications of doing so, and policy changes needed going forward. Policy recommendations start with the idea that the United States must maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent in the future. This chapter will recommend that the United States modernize and dedicate national treasure to the nuclear arsenal as perhaps the most cost-effective deterrent to large-scale war and nuclear war. Furthermore, it is suggested that the United States nuclear arsenal is responsible for controlling some, although not all, instability in the world. There is also a need to assure allies and attribute nuclear weapons to their source in the event of their use, which are critical components to maintaining stability and security burden-sharing. Last, the recommendation is made that the debate over the nuclear arsenal needs to be opened up to a greater audience by the Department of Defense and the President. A deliberate effort to facilitate a national discussion is necessary. The United States’s nuclear posture and its policy statements need to send a message to the world that clearly establishes credibility, is supported by the American people, and clearly communicates the American position to the rest of the world.
