U.S. Nuclear Policy Is Hypocritical

America’s Nuclear Policy Adjustment Is Evasive and Still Rejects Calls Not to Use Nuclear Weapons First

It is well known that the United States' government possesses nuclear weapons that could destroy the earth a dozen times over. Thus, over the years, the international media have been urging the U.S. toward nuclear disarmament. The Obama administration took over with the slogan of “change” and tried to reshape the image of the U.S. with new foreign policies, including a nuclear disarmament policy as one of its priorities. The U.S. media have revealed that, unfortunately, the White House’s latest nuclear policy is failing to achieve concrete results.

Suspension of New Nuclear Weapons Development

On Feb. 28, the New York Times reported that, according to a White House assistant, Obama would adjust U.S. nuclear policy. He promised to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, not to develop new nuclear weapons and to maintain the reliability of existing nuclear arsenals. At the same time, he wants to develop a new technology called “Prompt Global Strike” weapons and expand missile defense systems as a deterrent.
　　
According to the White House official, who declined to be named, the U.S. government would promise not to develop new nuclear weapons, including a low-yield “deeply-burrowing nuclear warhead,” for which the Bush administration had advocated additional research and develop. The essence of the new nuclear policy aims to rebuild the dominant position held by the U.S. in nuclear arms control, nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, goals during the Bush administration that were largely ignored. This policy includes seeking congressional approval for the “Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty” (CTBT) and promotion within the international community to amend the “Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

These newest U.S. nuclear weapons policies will be written in the latest version of the classified U.S. report, the “Nuclear Posture Review.” According to reports, U.S. President Barack Obama has started to make final decisions regarding the content to be included in the report this week, which the Obama administration has been debating for some time.

Offensive Nuclear Weapons Policy Unchanged

Unfortunately, the U.S. offensive nuclear weapons policy will remain unchanged, highlighted by the adherence to the “pre-emptive strike” doctrine and no guarantee against being the first to use nuclear weapons. In the Nuclear Posture Review introduced in January 2002, the U.S. government not only regarded nuclear weapons as a means of diplomatic threat and a tool to launch a “pre-emptive strike,” but also lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons, which created more possibilities for using tactical nuclear weapons and small-scale nuclear weapons by the U.S. in future wars. The “pre-emptive strike” nuclear policy of the U.S. aroused concerns from many countries, especially those deemed as “failed states” or “outposts of tyranny” by the U.S. government, exacerbating the global nuclear arms race and nuclear proliferation.

Thus, in 2001, and at each successive nuclear weapons nonproliferation meeting, many countries requested that the U.S. government commit to not use nuclear weapons first but, without exception, were rejected. Although this time the U.S. government said that the current U.S. nuclear weapons policy has changed dramatically, it is still disappointing in that the U.S. does not intend to pledge not to use nuclear weapons first. It seems that, as part of U.S. nuclear weapons policy, this aspect is a less important one.

In addition, Obama also plans to add content on the development of conventional deterrence, known as a “Prompt Global Strike” system to the new assessment report. Arms control expert Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution said that the so-called “Prompt Global Strike” system refers to the installation of conventional, non-nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Once the government is informed of the location of important intelligence targets, such as al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the intercontinental ballistic missiles could be launched from the U.S. mainland and could reach — and initiate combat at — any global location within an hour.

Major Adjustment Is a Misnomer

As a nuclear superpower, the U.S. possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenals with up to 4,500 strategic offensive nuclear warheads and the world's most advanced missile defense system.

International opinion generally holds that since the Obama administration has been proposing a “nuclear-free world,” it should, to a large degree, take the lead in the reduction of its own nuclear weapons and abandon the offensive nuclear weapons policy. But the fact that the U.S. government wants to adjust only certain aspects of nuclear weapons policy and call it “significant change,” while leaving the most critical aspect — the offensive nuclear weapons policy — untouched is certainly very hypocritical.

The former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had written an article criticizing the U.S. for non-compliance of the rules and restrictions stated in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and thought this move was unnecessary and dangerous. Some inside the U.S. have also called on the government to make a fresh start with its nuclear policy; otherwise, it can only be counterproductive. As a matter of fact, as long as the world’s first nuclear superpower, the U.S., continues to pursue an arbitrary nuclear policy, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will be difficult to enforce and the global trend of rampant nuclear proliferation will not be able to effectively be contained.