Nuclear Weapons: An Unnecessary Tool of U.S. Foreign Policy

With the first decade of the 21^st century nearing completion the United States enters the dawn of a new era. That era is the age of nuclear re-expansion and possible nuclear proliferation attempts by rogue states and terrorist organizations. The United States has, in the last century, acted as a beacon of unparalleled world power in terms other than just military supremacy, but also economics, technology, the arts, and diplomacy. US foreign policy carries vast influence on hundreds of nations abroad and here at home. Nuclear weapons, first invented and then used offensively by the US in 1945, were once an integral part of foreign policy. However, in the 21^st century such weapons are no longer a necessary tool of US foreign policy and should be phased out.

US foreign policy is the means in which the United States conducts itself with foreign nations. From the US Department of State, the official aim of US foreign policy is to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community. The role of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal originally have acted as a deterrent to global nuclear hostility, and thus followed the State Department's idea of a secure American people and national community. Despite this, in recent years the presence of an active US nuclear arsenal has not provided defense but a potential growth to nuclear acquisition activity world wide. Nuclear weapon use on our end would produce undesirable results no matter what kind of nation we are firing at, their use could cause a domino effect in causing more than originally intended amount of nukes to be launched by one or more aggressors causing unnecessary civilian damage, a crisis such as the Cubin Missile Crisis may occur again, and our opponents do not pose a threat even with nuclear weapons with the US arsenal only containing conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons are an outdated and over powered weapon which can be replaced by safer and more effective means.

A Look Back

Despite the lack of importance for nuclear weapons on foreign policy today, they have previously been a required tool of foreign policy. During the Cold War the US was at a stand off with the USSR. Several "races" were being held between the two states to vie for power, such as a space race an arms race, and more importantly, the nuclear arms race. During this time, the US and USSR put an emphasis on the creation of more nuclear weapons and, just as importantly, new and advanced deployment methods for nuclear weapons. With three ways to deliver nuclear payloads; Inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear armed submarines, and aircraft, creates many secondary strike capabilities for both nations. Secondary strike capabilities, being the ability to launch nuclear weapons after ones home country has been heavily damaged by enemy nuclear or non-nuclear weapons, was the action that maintained the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD is a form of deterrence; neither the US or USSR would fire nuclear weapons at each other for fear that the other would retaliate with an equal or higher number of nuclear weapons, resulting in the destruction of both states.

Today's Players

Today, MAD plays a less important role. What the US worries about now is nuclear proliferation, which is the expansion of nuclear technology and production capabilities to non-nuclear nations and terrorist groups. The US is at present fighting a war in Iraq on the grounds of halting its, thankfully nonexistent, nuclear weapons program. North Korea tested one of its own nuclear weapons, though not completely successful, and is still thought to have a few working warheads. Iran has uranium enrichment capabilities giving it the option to create nuclear weapons in less than a decade if it wished. Additionally, a more likely threat is terrorist groups like Al-Qaida who show willingness to obtain nuclear weapons for acts of terror. Because of the acts of the former head of Pakistani nuclear production A.Q. Khan, centrifuges capable of creating nuclear weapons grade material has been sold to numerous known and unknown groups and states, furthering possible proliferation.

A main reason for the expansion in the interest of nuclear proliferation is the presence of a US superpower. States who wish to acquire or produce nuclear weapons use the claim of self defense or deterrence as an excuse to consider nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups use the excuse of defense of the land of Islam from America and Israel as an excuse to carry out acts of violence, thankfully not yet with a nuclear weapon. If the US along with its allies and other states such as Russia and China disarm their nuclear arsenals it will relieve other nations of an excuse to produce such weapons, and give the US and United Nations more bargaining ground when arguing for nuclear non-proliferation using itself as an example.

Setting aside nuclear proliferation to states and terrorist groups, a more pressing matter may be existing nuclear states, namely Russia and China. Both states have reasonably sized nuclear weapons stockpiles and both have the potential to improve their delivery and warning systems. There is a fear among some American thinkers that with a US nuclear primacy, as well with a primacy in most other military factors, will result in a more aggressive foreign policy. This is evident with Iran where President Bush said the US would not hesitate in a nuclear first strike option with Iran if it thought there was a chance of a nuclear weapon threatening the US its allies. Such aggression may prompt Russia and China to expand their nuclear capabilities.

A Change in Strategy

"The United States is the biggest conventional power in the world. If we were offered a magic wand that would wipe out all nuclear weapons and the knowledge of their construction, we'd wave it in a nanosecond. A world without nuclear weapons would not be disadvantageous to the United States. In fact, a world without nuclear weapons would actually be better." - Les Aspin, Former US Secretary of Defense

A Lose-Lose Situation

The use of nuclear attacks on Japan at the conclusion of World War II was hailed as a brilliant tactic that saved millions of lives - US and Japanese military, Japanese civilians, as well as infrastructure. Given that there were those who immediately rejected the idea of nuclear weapons after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, why is there much more support now for a phase out of nuclear weapons than in the past? Part of that is known by looking at the actual use of nuclear weapons in today's world. To launch a nuclear weapon at a nuclear state would be potentially dangerous, and one that could be done with conventional weapons. To launch a nuclear weapon at a non-nuclear state would be militarily unnecessary, morally foolish, and politically inexcusable: taking into consideration what the receiving state may retaliate with and the damage done to innocents in the attack. Either way, use of a nuclear weapon has drawbacks, and would be used in a situation where conventional weapons would likely solve the situation in an equal or better fashion.

C'mon, Just One More

Some would argue that nuclear weapons do not need to be used in an end-all case where one or both states completely annihilate the other. Rather, they could be used in a limited fashion with tactically placed nukes. The problem is the lack of ability to contain a nuclear strike; there's no way to prevent a nuke from resulting in massive civilian life and property loss. Additionally, escalation after an initial nuclear attack may be quicker, less analyzed, and more brutal than a wound inflicted by a conventional weapon. The effected state may be rasher and use secondary strike capabilities and fire additional nukes or missiles, resulting in more nukes being fired back, and all resulting in a devastating battle of warheads filling the sky. Such an event would cause many unnecessary losses to civilian life and property.

That Crisis Involving Cuba and some Missiles

When one looks back on the not too old history of nuclear weapons, one event must stand up above most others - it was the day the world was very near a nuclear disaster. That event was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. As we learned after the fact, the Soviet Union had some 162 nuclear warheads including at least 90 tactical warheads stationed on Cuba. This was in response to the US positioning of nuclear weapons in Turkey, near the Russian border. During the crisis, Fidel Castro, Cuba's President, urged the Soviet ambassador to tell Soviet Premier Khrushchev to retaliate against any nuclear attack from the US with their own nukes. Tensions increased with the US blockade of Cuba and in the mind of the Soviets, a US invasion or aerial strike at any moment. During the event four Soviet nuclear subs were told to fire their nuclear payload at the US in the event the Americans took action against Cuba. Frighteningly, these sub's commanders did not have open communication to their Soviet bases and were acting alone. The US was very close to being on the receiving end of a nuclear payload, and in retaliation, Russia would be as well from US secondary strike capabilities. Castro was interviewed some time after the event and asked what he would have done should the US invade his country. He said he would have permitted the Soviet missiles launched, even if it meant the annihilation of his country. So why look back at the Cuban Missile Crisis? Because such an event could easily happen again. Even as recent as this year, Russia is arguing over US placement of missiles in Poland as a European missile defense network. French President Nicholas Sarkozy adequately states, such an act doesn't make Europe a safer place and only moves things backwards. Russia has already considered positioning missiles in friendly states near US friendly European states - a clear flashback of a toned down version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The next time such a crisis on a nuclear level may occur, no natter which states are involved, could end badly; either way, vast numbers civilians could die.

Who and What We'd be up Against

So far I've discussed the consequences of the US maintaining nuclear weapons and the problems or accidents that could occur from their use and maintenance. If up to this point one still argues for the continuation of a large nuclear arsenal then they would need to argue the effective use of such weapons. To use such weapons we would need an opponent, so let us examine our likely opponents.

Russia comes up as a possibility. Not only were they long held enemies during the Cold War, but even to this day Russia and the US do not have the friendliest of relations. Allow us to examine Russia's nuclear capabilities and if they pose any threat. Russia has 39% fewer long-range bombers, 58% fewer ICBMs, and 80% fewer nuclear armed submarines than the Soviet Union had during its heyday. In addition to these reductions, what nuclear capabilities Russia does still have are highly degraded. Russia's long range aircraft are kept at two bases; highly vulnerable to first strikes. The majority of the ICMB silos have passed the original intent for use dates without proficient upkeep - their missiles haven't been replaced for some time. Their mobile ICBM capabilities rarely patrol and if launched from their bases would take considerable time to prepare even in a crisis situation. The Russian's poorly trained sub fleet rarely goes on patrol, and lacks the support craft needed to defend itself from early detection. Additionally, the subs failed training exercises as recently as 2005. The early warning system of Russia is primarily land based, which has many holes and weak points where an ICBM or aircraft could slip by, and if a warhead is launched near the shore from a US sub very limited if any warning would be given before impact. All in all, Russia poses very little threat.

China is another potential adversary to the US; however, they share many of the problems Russia has, except having even fewer nuclear weapons. China's early detection system is faulty at best and would give very little if any warning to US warheads launched from the continental US, submarine, or aircraft. Even if notice was given, it would take a while to fuel up China's warheads for a retaliatory strike.

The only other nuclear states are the UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The first four on the list would not likely consider hostilities against the US and share good relations. Pakistan has no ill intent to the US and developed nuclear weapons mainly in response to India, and the range of a Pakistani nuclear warhead is a couple hundred miles at best. North Korea's arsenal would be low-yield weapons and lack the range to harm the US. This leaves the only other potential threat from terrorist organizations. The problem of terrorist organizations is that they have no country to strike back against. If they do strike it will likely be from an individual transporting the weapon into the US. Even if the US can detect a terrorist group with a weapon in a foreign state, a conventional warhead would be more adequate in exterminating the problem than a nuclear warhead in terms of aftermath damage (potentially to a friendly state) and quicker to deploy and fire than a nuclear weapon.

The Safe Alternative
There are alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons that would provide better results for the US. Conventional weapons are deadly and accurate enough to destroy individual buildings fired over 100 miles from a battleship. Bunker busting missiles can penetrate deep down into the ground to eliminate hideouts and bunkers. Patriot missiles and research into future technologies offer ways to destroy or disarm nuclear weapons and other ballistic missiles mid-air before ever landing on their target. Early detection allows us to spot enemy subs, aircraft, or rockets early before coming too close to US soil. If we believe a nuclear strike to be coming then conventional ICBMs would still be able to be launched to destroy targets before they could be able to fire at us first. Because of all these factors, conventional weapons are all that is needed in today's world of warfare to stay safe. Nuclear weapons do not add to this safety level, but make it worse.

The Other Side

In Response

Despite the legitimate reasons mentioned already, some argue to continue to hold onto the US nuclear arsenal as an important piece of US foreign policy and defense. Let's examine a few statements in support of a US nuclear arsenal.

Leaked information from the Nuclear Posture Review, a classified Department of Defense review of US nuclear forces, as well as other various documents and statements from the Bush Whitehouse state several points.

- U.S. nuclear weapons can deter potential adversaries from acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry,

- The U.S. should threaten and should plan to use nuclear weapons preemptively to prevent WMD attacks on the United States, its forces abroad, or U.S. allies.

- The U.S. should use nuclear weapons to destroy certain high-value targets-in particular, hardened and deeply buried targets, or stocks of chemical and biological weapons-that are difficult to destroy with conventional weapons.

In respect to the first point, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and formerly Iraq and Libya all had been trying or considering to acquire weapons of mass destruction as a defense to deter the US from invading or harming their interests. Iran has supposedly ceased attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon but is suspect to producing weapons grade material. North Korea has already detonated a weapon. This point is clearly not working out as it was originally intended.

On the second point Threats of using weapons of mass destruction can lead the U.S. into a commitment trap, promising retaliation that might be grossly disproportionate by using nuclear weapons. We shouldn't get into a situation where our reputation depends on carrying out threats that don't make sense. Instead, conventional weapons can be used as a preventative mean. In both situations we have the same amount of warning, and conventional weapons will be more than sufficient without the devastating side effects of a nuclear attack. On the third point, conventional weapons can be used on high value targets. On targets with an excessive underground defense, a continuous pounding from many conventional missiles would be equivalent in power, and if not will cause enough damage to cease any hostile activity for enough time to land in ground troops or exercise other means of military force.

The last argument commonly used is that even if the US ceases holding nuclear weapons, some states like North Korea and others would still likely continue nuclear expansion. The main point of the US disarming its nuclear arsenal would focus on how our nuclear policy affects our attitude and incentive to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Other means can be exercised on states such as North Korea.

Hope for the Best

Nuclear weapons once played a key role in not only US but also World foreign policy. However, in the modern day such weapons are out dated and unnecessary for any hope of a peaceful and safe future. The catastrophic damage to life and property the weapons cause is not worth its use. A nuke is not a guided missile that can be launched to destroy a house containing a high value target in the middle of a city; a nuke will level the city and everything around it for miles. The risks of states having nuclear weapons is great; through trigger happy and nationalistic commanders a crisis such as the Cubin Missile Crisis could cause a unnecessary nuclear holocaust. With the US's technology, conventional weapons carry enough power to protect us without the need for nuclear weapons, which only fuel global fear and hatred of the US and encourage nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons are not a necessary tool of US foreign policy and must be phased out, as they only pose a threat to global safety and security.

Sources

Fetter, Steve. "The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Element of Nonproliferation Policy." Nuclear Prohibition. 6 Apr. 2006. Maryland School of Public Policy/CISSM Forum. 14 Nov. 2008 .

Lieber, Kier A., and Daryl G. Press. "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy." Foreign Affairs. Mar.- Apr. 2006. Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. 14 Nov. 2008 .

McNamara, Robert S. "Apocalypse Soon." Foreign Policy. May-June 2005. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive, LLC. 14 Nov. 2008 .