Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review and the Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism
I notice that the New York Times has an article providing some small insight into the Obama Nuclear Posture Review.
Given that I have written some on the deterrence of nuclear terrorism and that I am working on a book on the topic of nuclear terrorism, which will include a chapter on deterrence and nuclear terrorism, I can't help but comment.
According to the article,
...The Obama administration’s classified review of nuclear weapons policy will for the first time make thwarting nuclear-armed terrorists a central aim of American strategic nuclear planning, according to senior Pentagon officials...
Wow, when I read that opening line I almost fell out of my chair.
I have had to calm down, make a cup of tea, and then read the rest of the article a couple of times over to make sure I understand it properly.
Consider. The tenor suggests that the scope of nuclear deterrence is being expanded. But hang on, doesn't Obama want to go to zero nukes? Why is everybody still focused on numbers and not doctrine?
It goes on to state that the Obama NPR will place the deterrence of nuclear terrorism as
...a task equal to the traditional mission of deterring a strike by major powers or emerging nuclear adversaries...
The article has an Obama official as stating that the threat of nuclear terrorism has been increasing since 9/11.
If by nuclear terrorism one means an attempt to instigate a nuclear terror event by way of a true nuclear yield then I think we need to be careful. This constitutes the underlying premise behind the centralisation of this type of deterrence, the insider seems to imply.
I think that the threat has been decreasing since about 1998-1999. From what I have seen, for example, al Qaida is facing a funding crisis. No bucks no Buck Rogers.
The article does state that other approaches, such as layered defences, play the "primary" role in countering nuclear terrorism not nuclear weapons. Indeed, but primary does not mean exclusively.
The devil, as always, is in the details. How will this declaration affect actual war planning? That remains to be seen.
The article is a bit unfair on the Bush administration. It states,
...While similar goals have been expressed before, no previous formal review elevated the threat of nuclear terrorism to a central element of the government’s strategic blueprint.
In comparison, the previous nuclear review, completed under President George W. Bush, called for new nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers, including those that might hold unconventional weapons, in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya...
The Bush NPR was completed before 9/11. It could hardly place the deterrence of nuclear terrorism at its centre given that the prospect of nuclear terrorism and the role of deterrence in countering it was not on too many peoples minds. Well, it was to a degree. People tended to speak of it as a counter to the centrality of Ballistic Missile Defence in early Bush era thinking.
My view is that there is no need for these type of declarations, but I'm not gonna talk about that here.
Since 9/11, believe me, the question of nuclear war planning and nuclear terrorism did figure highly in Bush policy. For instance when "tailored deterrence" came out of the closet officially in 2006 nuclear terror was front and central.
This article suggests to me that tailored deterrence is staying. Let us see what happens.
There is some stuff here on other issues. The article strongly implies that something like the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a go, but then it states towards the end
...Even as the review enters its final stages, two important issues remain unresolved, officials said.
One is the proper approach to maintaining and modernizing the stockpile of nuclear warheads, which would lead to a decision on whether current warheads should be reused and refurbished, or whether they should be replaced by a new generation of weapons...
The debate is between refurbishment and replacement. The debate might be fierce, but the difference isn't really major. Both go beyond stockpile stewardship in my opinion.
It seems, though, that there is a debate on no-first use. That's interesting. Obama has vetoed a UN resolution on de-alerting. This came after his much reported visit to the UN Security Council, a visit devoted to nuclear issues. The visit and the Obama spin was much reported, the UN veto was hardly reported if at all.
I think that the 2010 NPT Rev Con will probably be like the Copenhagen climate change summit.
All talk and little action.
Contact.
Categories
Archives
About the Author
Marko is also interested in philosophy, especially the theory of knowledge, and science, especially physics, and considers himself to work within the naturalist and enlightenment tradition. He is writing a book on nuclear terrorism.