In Pursuit of Nuclear Abolition

We have had the last seven Presidents advocate for either major reductions in nuclear weapons or their near abolition, but almost no analysis has been forthcoming as to what reductions have secured for U.S. security, and whether one should try practically to get to or toward abolition. When such an analysis is completed, the maze of contradictions in the arguments for complete abolition became apparent as does the troubling impact such abolition narratives have on the current nuclear strategic balance including arms reductions.

It is true that even before the use of atomic weapons against Japan ended World War II, there were those who wished nukes could be banned altogether. After August 1945, and absent abolition, there were calls for such weapons and all uranium mining and research to be controlled by a UN organization under what was known as the 1946 Baruch Plan. All nations would allow inspections by a UN authority to ensure nuclear activity was peaceful. The U.S. would unilaterally give up its nuclear capability while Russia promised they would do so some time in the future.

Russia and China have built arsenals of highly accurate and very low yield, battlefield nuclear weapon. While it may indeed be fanciful to believe such use of nuclear weapons ---e.g., “escalate to win”—makes sense, unfortunately Moscow and Peking believe such warfare is workable and have deployed just such forces. If on the other hand one believes the threat to use such battlefield nuclear weapons is all bluff, then why does the West keep any nuclear extended deterrent in Europe? And if the bad guys won’t escalate using theater nuclear weapons, why would they escalate and use central strategic systems? It’s either all bluff or all real. Either the U.S. needs a nuclear deterrent or we don’t. Again, another contradiction.

Many abolitionists reject the option of nuclear deterrence at any level for fear that the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons will lead quickly to all out nuclear use and Armageddon. Many new books and Hollywood movies now have this message. Thus, for fear that without abolition nuclear war is inevitable, the abolitionists would unilaterally get rid of the very American nuclear deterrent that has kept the nuclear peace for 80 years. And thus, in still another contradiction, abolitionists make it more likely that our adversaries and enemies will use against us and our allies the very nuclear weapons whose elimination is being sought because the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable!

Another abolition narrative is that it is unfair for the nuclear “have” nations to bully other “have not” nuclear nations. Hans Blix, a Swedish diplomat, and the former International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) Director-General told me at a Senate briefing there was no reason the U.S. should have nuclear weapons but not any other country, such as Sweden for example. He declared the only fair solution was for everyone to have such weapons or no one. This again is a popular framing of the nuclear environment but nonetheless highly distorted, even dangerous. In the absence of abolition, Blix was advocating wholesale proliferation, a total contradiction of his mission at IAEA.

Furthermore, the U.S. extended deterrent force is hardly for bullying, as it is totally defensive, and not coupled with a conventional force that can invade East in Europe or West in the Pacific. On the other hand, China and Russia have battlefield nuclear force precisely to commit aggression, such as against Ukraine and Taiwan. They do not have nuclear weapons with which to extend protection to their friends. Their proxy friends such as North Korea and Iran, routinely attack and murder their neighbors. Between 1965-73 for example, as ROK retired General Bun In-Chun recently explained, North Korea regularly  attacked ROK military bases, resulting in over 1000 North Korean terrorists killed or captured on ROK territory. Iran is the state in the world that engages in the most terror attacks including on their own people. Islamic Jihad, Hamas (the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinians), Hezbollah and the Houthis undertake serial murder, rape and bombing campaigns, all at the direction of Iran, in the name of ridding the world of Jews, Christians and others standing in the way of spreading violent Islam everywhere, including planning and executing the attacks of 9-11. In yet another contradiction, ending U.S. extended deterrent would let loose the adversary bullies now chanting “death to America.”

President Reagan pushed at Reykjavik for the elimination of nuclear weapons but as part of a strategy to first eliminate what Ambassador Ron Lehman told me were “fast flyers,” especially large, multiple warhead land based missiles. The very missiles banned under START II.  And precisely why Gorbachev and then the Russian Duma later rejected START II. Again, Iceland was when Reagan sought to lessen the major coercive and blackmail power of nuclear armed missiles, the very core of Soviet military power. START II got rid of such missiles but that objective is now missing in abolition strategies today. Another contradiction.

Though abolition continues to be a project for the distant future in the rhetorical hopes of some, the serious business is eliminating the blackmail and coercive (albeit reckless) use of nuclear weapons. Our enemies seek not to deter war, but to secure the objectives of war itself whether invading Ukraine, taking over Taiwan, killing all Israelis, or swallowing the Republic of Korea.

To ensure success, the Brothers Mayhem, (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran), are seeking their objectives through a cooperative “unrestricted warfare” against the U.S. and the West. Nuclear weapons are the shield behind which they fight. Our job? To make sure we win, they lose.

Peter Huessy is President of Geostrategic Analysis and Senior Fellow at NIDS and the Gold Institute and is featured weekly on the John Batchelor Show.