The Big Question: Did Obama make the right move on nuclear arms?
Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free:, said:
On balance, the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review signals more continuity than change. The review wisely clarifies the limited but essential role that nuclear weapons play in safeguarding U.S. national security through deterrence. Unfortunately, it fails to set the stage for dramatic and necessary changes to a bloated and outdated force structure because it reaffirms the U.S. commitment to other countries that imposes a huge burden on our military and on U.S. taxpayers.
The NPR’s middle ground stance on first use has elicited most of the media’s attention, but the role that the U.S. military plays around the world — a role highlighted by the NPR’s repeated reassurances that our allies and partners will be covered by the U.S. security umbrella — deserves even greater scrutiny. Two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States continues to carry the burden for security in Europe and East Asia. The costs of this burden are growing, but the NPR merely sets the stage for the continuation of this worrisome trend.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
It seems somehow worse than
naïve to expect the only nation that has actually used nuclear weapons
in war to foreswear the “first strike” option, and yet that is what
many were hoping would be the outcome of President Obama’s new nuclear
posture review. However, our sense of disappointment is all the keener
because he used what could have been an historic opportunity to make
a grotesque mockery of our hope, by singling out Iran and North Korea
as the two notable exceptions to the “no first strike” pledge.
As the Washington Post
put it, the new policy comes with a “major caveat: The countries must
be in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations under
international
treaties. That loophole would mean Iran would remain on the potential
target list.” Of course, Iran maintains that it is in compliance,
and since International Atomic Energy Agency agreements with member
states are not public, we don’t know what the terms are, and therefore
it is not clear if they are in compliance or not: we would just have
to take the President’s word, given a US attack on Iran, that they
are not. However, with Iran a smoldering nuked ruin, the point would
be quite moot….
In any case, it seems odd that
the President would take such a stance in the context of a general
policy
review designed to reduce the possibility of nuclear war, and on the
eve of a major disarmament agreement with the Russians. Odd, that is,
unless we’re on the road to war with Iran …
Hal Lewis, professor of
Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:
I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that at least a few
nuclear experts (a dying breed of which the country is still well
stocked) had been involved in balancing the complex and conflicting
values associated with a nuclear arsenal. Nothing in the history of this
administration gives me confidence that this has been the case.
Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
“The US government will pledge to refrain from using nuclear weapons to attack any country in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — even if that country has attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons.” [ABC News]
Well, that’s pretty dumb. It just encourages our enemies to increase their development of biological weapons, which are just as deadly as nukes. Or better hide their nukes.
Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:
Every step toward nuclear disarmament is good policy, even when the ultimate goal seems almost hopeless. As the world’s major nuclear power, it is up to the U.S. to provide leadership in the quest to halt nuclear proliferation. Announcing a “no first strike” policy is one small step in the right direction.
Paul Kawika Martin, policy director for Peace Action, said:
President Obama is the most engaged U.S. president ever on nuclear disarmament issues, and Peace Action, like millions around the world, applauded his Prague speech one year ago calling for a nuclear weapons-free world. We are also encouraged by the New START agreement, to be signed in Prague this Thursday, as a modest but necessary step toward further nuclear arms cuts with Russia.
However, the president’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released today, appears to be too beholden to outdated Cold War thinking, and it doesn’t measure up to his vision of a nuclear-free world. It’s certainly better than the one released by the Bush administration which called for the possibility of using nuclear weapons on nonnuclear states. The Obama administration reversed that. President Obama also stated the U.S. would not build new nuclear weapons like those the previous administration wanted but Congress thankfully blocked. Nonetheless, the document leaves room for the possibilities of new warheads in the future.
Besides this disappointing NPR, the Administration has proposed a big increase in funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, and is considering a very bad nuclear technology deal with Pakistan, thus rewarding one of the worst nuclear weapons proliferators. This is in addition to a similarly bad deal with India under the Bush administration.
Luckily, the NPR is not the last word on these or other nuclear weapons subjects. Congress, the American people, and the international community all have a role to play in advocating faster progress toward the global elimination of the scourge of nuclear weapons. The upcoming Non Proliferation Treaty Review conference in May will attract tens of thousands of people from around the world to New York City demanding a safer world with no nuclear weapons.
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
When discussing “nuclear strategy” or anything related to our nation’s military, the very purpose of maintaining a military force has to be considered. It usually isn’t even mentioned.
Our nation (any nation?) has a right to defend itself. Maintaining a military force should only be for this purpose. But we live in an era of preemptive war against another nation that did not attack us and, indeed, did not even threaten us. We have invited retaliation for our gross misdeeds.
Regarding President Obama’s decision to scale back our nation’s nuclear strategy, it should be assessed only in light of our nation’s needs, not in order to comply with some international treaty. History is very clear about the best way to avoid war as being so well prepared for it that no other nation would consider attacking. If his new strategy weakens our nation and makes us vulnerable to attack, it is a serious mistake.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. A policy of preventing other nations from building their own nuclear weapons capability seems to be inviting trouble for our nation.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Log Reg
