I have always been suspicious of arguments about nuclear deterrence. After the Soviet Union broke up, it seemed to me that those arguments needed to be redrawn, since they had been based on the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Nobody’s done that.
Back in the 1960s, Robert McNamara recognized that nuclear deterrence could easily deteriorate into a comparison of weapons. That’s what’s happened in the justifications for the lower-yield nuclear weapons introduced to nuclear submarines. That’s all the justification that’s been made. That’s not deterrence.
So I wrote a piece about that, and Foreign Policy published it. There’s another little piece that didn’t quite fit, that Inkstick Media published. All the talk about “restoring deterrence” vis-à-vis Iran is nonsense.
So please read those two.
Mary G
Congratulations, Cheryl! I have always wondered about that. Because I can be impolite, I think of it as a dick measuring contest.
Gbbalto
Cheryl – Thank you as always for this valuable and expert commentary
Mike in DC
China has a de facto policy of “minimum credible deterrence”, which is the position of having just enough weapons remaining after a first strike that the cost of aggression is still far too high. They can do this with only around 300 weapons in their arsenal.
As to France and the United Kingdom, there’s no prize to be gained by an enemy worth being targeted by over a hundred warheads.
The US and Russia are the only countries that have over 1000 warheads. I’d like to see both countries scale down to under half that, at least.
Cheryl Rofer
@Mary G: Deterrence is a real thing, whether with nuclear or conventional weapons. Basically, it’s the threat that if you do something to me, I’ll do something worse to you. So you don’t do anything to me.
But there are many reasons why nations decide not to go to war, not just deterrence.
And the lower-yield nuclear weapons are basically being justified by “but the other guy’s got them.” Or just by saying they will enhance deterrence. Just those magic words.
Gbbalto
@Mike in DC: I agree. Those countries have settled on an adequate deterrent, I think (as a non-expert).
Mike in NC
I recall that one of Fat Bastard’s first ideas was to quadruple the size of our current nuclear arsenal, because why not? Adults in the room tried to explain we had binding treaties and so forth. Not sure what treaties still are in effect. His new faux budget calls for obscene bloating of Pentagon spending, with cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The usual Republican wet dream. That shit is DOA thanks only to Speaker Pelosi.
Yutsano
@Cheryl Rofer: Just remember us little peeps. That’s all I ask.
Another Scott
@Mike in NC:
Not really. The top-line DoD budget is set by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
That’s a decent article on how he’s moving money around in the Pentagon, and spending money on new nuclear weapons is stupid and dangerous, but the total is fixed by existing law.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
debbie
@Another Scott:
I’m kind of sad the budget cuts Stars and Stripes into oblivion. It may be a symbol of yesteryear, but it’s the good yesteryear, not the vile, racist yesteryear Trump is championing.
debbie
I think Pompeo is confusing deterrence with Iran’s refusal to be drawn in by his childish antics. It’s like some perverse version of the five-second rule (“No response in five minutes, so I win!”). Iran will certainly deliver retribution for Solemani’s assassination, but at the time of their own choosing.
Marcopolo
Warren just took to the stage at her gathering & congratulated Klobuchar on her strong showing—proving women are competitive.
Very classy!
Marcopolo
@debbie: Are we forgetting the 100+ American soldiers who experienced Traumatic Head Injuries from a rocket assault on their base? Seems like a pretty strong response to me.
Ohio Mom
Congrats Cheryl!
Its too late for me to do anything that requires concentration but I promise I’ll click your links tomorrow.
O. Felix Culpa
@Ohio Mom: Same here. I need some sleep to clear my weary head, and then will read.
Bill Arnold
That Foreign Policy piece is nicely crafted (IMO). Have you had any feedback about it yet?
January brought concerns (re Iran and ease of use and D.J. Trump’s chaotic and selfish decision-making style) about the low-yield Trident system ref-ed in the FP article: With a New Weapon in Donald Trump’s Hands, The Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear (William Arkin, 1/13/20)
I’m seriously concerned by these; they increase the risk of escalation in many crisis regions near oceans.
Cheryl Rofer
@Bill Arnold: Thanks! A number of people have tweeted the article with complimentary comments. There’s a lot in it, and I haven’t had much substantive reaction.
I am wary of Arkin. He gets a lot of stuff right, but he also goes off the deep end from time to time.
Some of the folks who helped to trash the INF Treaty also want to forward-deploy ground-based nuclear-armed missiles. Trouble is, nobody in the region wants them on their territory.