How should the U.S. talk about her nuclear weapons?
The Obama administration is reportedly locking horns with the Pentagon over the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review - which will spell out the administration's nuclear doctrine. On the one hand, we have the White House pushing to enshrine President Obama's goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons from the world vs. the Pentagon's desire to maintain a viable deterrent.
So much of the debate over nuclear weapons has an "angels on the head of a pin" quality to it, with people agonizing over the subtle meaning of words about weapons that have a very, very low likelihood of ever being used. But since this nuclear philosophizing remains an important element in global security, it's worth doing right. Jeffrey Lewis offers his thoughts:
'As a result, I tend to think talking about why we have nuclear weapons is a better approach than trying to find a phrase, such as â??existential threats,â? that explains when the President might use nuclear weapons. The â??existential threatsâ? formulation, in particular, will baffle foreign audiences, who in turn will ask what precisely threatens the existence of the United States and others. This discussion can only go badly. For example, are we saying we would forswear nuclear weapons in the event of a limited nuclear attack that didnâ??t threaten the existence of the United States? Would a North Korean biological attack threaten the existence of Japan? No good can come of answering such questions, yet declining eliminates much of the advantage in making the commitment in the first place.'
I think the less we say, the better.
(AP Photos)