Sole Purpose or Primary Purpose for Obama’s Delayed Nuclear Posture Review?
Having gotten through a few server problems I am once again able to blog, and there is one issue that has attracted attention in the interim. Of course, I speak of the Nuclear Posture Review.
The review has been delayed yet again, as I also notice, has the post START arms control accord. They really do seem to be tracking each other quite nicely.
The NPR has attracted attention because of two articles, one appearing in The New York Times and the other in The Washington Post. Of the two the Post's is the more meaty, as you would expect given that it was cowritten by Walter Pincus, so let's go through that one.
Both articles, by the way, are pretty sure that the US will not adopt a no-first use pledge. Let us not quibble with that. One thing that I noticed about the Post article was the following point, which has not been much discussed,
...Until recently, Obama generally has not intervened in the Pentagon-led process, which also involves officials from the State Department, the Energy Department and other agencies...
Early in the process it was alleged that Obama basically vetoed a Pentagon first draft. That doesn't square with what the Post is reporting above. It seems that this little story has already become history. Analysts must be careful not to repeat the "Obama sent back the first draft" story uncritically from here on in.
Let's get to some substance. The Post article states,
...Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"?...
The NYT article kind of suggested that the latter would get up. The Post is not so sure. In fact, at the end it suggested that "sole purpose" would in fact be adopted, sort of,
...As part of his declaratory policy, Obama will have to consider whether to break with the Bush and Clinton administrations' studied ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons to respond to chemical or biological attacks planned by non-nuclear countries.
The president is expected to adopt that change, but with an important caveat, officials said. The new policy would drop that threat only for countries in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus not working on their own bomb...
So even if "sole purpose" is adopted that, in true Obama-Clinton style, need not really mean "sole purpose". For Iran, North Korea and perhaps Syria "sole purpose" would not apply. The rogue states are the states that matter (they were the one explicitly stated in the 2001-2002 NPR). If so, we have here a fudge and plenty of scope for wriggling out of any "sole purpose" pledge. Let's leave aside further comment until the NPR comes out.
The Post also stated,
...The first option would scale back the arsenal's war role, potentially leading to a smaller U.S. stockpile and taking weapons off alert. The second option would be less of a change, holding out the nuclear threat but still permitting a reduction in weapons. The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say...
That suggests an Obama health care style rush to the centre. But notice that there is an important error here. The "sole scope" option it is stated could lead to "taking weapons off alert". Not really. First of all Obama has already knocked back a dealerting resolution at the United Nations. Secondly, high alert levels under Launch on Warning have nothing really to do with chemical and biological attacks per se.
That's just wrong.
At the end of the day what we are talking about here is declaratory policy. That only counts if it leads to a change in Presidential Guidance and so then in US strategic planning conducted by Strategic Command. I suspect that this whole declaratory policy saga is Obama trying to set the scene for a successful NPT Review Conference for Washington without giving much away, in terms of the overall US strategic posture, in the process.
Now the Post article did state,
...Senior administration officials have indicated that the review is likely to roll back some George W. Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks...
If so, that means the current Presidential Guidance, NSPD-14, would need to go.
One interesting thing about the "sole purpose" and "primary purpose" debate is that it, potentially, sheds light on Clinton's PDD60. "Primary purpose" is probably how PDD60 enabled STRATCOM to draw up war plans assuming chemical and biological attacks but without guidance appearing to do so explicitly.
I notice that, in the NYT article, the Arms Control Association strongly critiques the "primary purpose" fudge. When darling Clinton was in the White House they accepted this fudge hook, line and sinker.
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.