The New Meanings and Intentions of America’s Nuclear Posture Review
On April 6, the U.S. Department of Defense issued the Nuclear Posture Review, as well as a new national nuclear strategy. U.S. President Obama issued a statement afterwards saying that “the greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states.” The main objective in America’s nuclear strategy is to prevent these threats.
Analysts believe that this recently announced report is driven by new ideas and intentions. America issued this review before the Nuclear Security Summit, which will deliberate on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the hopes that it can guide international cooperation on nuclear security and non-proliferation, as well as set the agenda for the dialogue on nuclear weapons.
Emphasis on Nuclear Strategic Balance
After the Cold War ended, America’s Department of Defense previously issued two other Nuclear Posture Reviews, but the most recent one is both different from and clearer than the other reviews. It emphasizes the concept of nuclear strategic balance.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller said on April 6 that this third report is the most comprehensive, and that it is the only report of which all the contents have been made public. He said the new strategy in the report emphasizes the balance between America’s and other countries’ nuclear capabilities, as well as the balance of American deployed weapons and nuclear stock. A Department of Defense official who wished to remain anonymous told the media on April 5 that the report repeatedly mentioned the word “balance.”
According to the content, this new report is neither very extremist nor very conservative. It states that any party lacking nuclear weapons that did not sign and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty could use nuclear weapons. But the report did not announce that the unsigned country could not use weapons first. The report stated that America would reduce its nuclear weapons stores and reduce the importance of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy; however, America could still keep some weapons to use as a nuclear deterrent and provide nuclear protection to its allies. The report also stated that America would no longer develop new nuclear weapons and would stop nuclear testing, but made it clear that America would continue to develop conventional weapons and would not restrict its guided missile defense system.
The report indicates that the United States will take a step toward limiting the use of nuclear weapons, promising to only consider using nuclear weapons under the most extreme circumstances. Still, it would protect its own country’s security, as well as the security of its allies. Its long-term goal is to limit the use of nuclear weapons so they are only used as a deterrent against countries who want to start a nuclear war against America and its allies.
Understanding Nuclear Agenda Setting
It is thought provoking that the United States decided to publish the Nuclear Posture Review before attending the Nuclear Security Summit and signing a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.
On April 8, Obama will leave for Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, and sign a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russian President Medvedev. Next week, the Nuclear Security Summit will be held in America’s capital, Washington. Leaders and government officials from 47 countries will talk about ways to ensure global nuclear security in the next four years. Additionally, the United Nations will hold a conference deliberating on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May to further strengthen global nuclear disarmament and prevent proliferation.
After the Nuclear Posture Review was issued, Obama issued a statement emphasizing the importance of every country's compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and promising that America would comply with this treaty. This statement clearly sends the signal: Obama hopes to make nuclear non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear terrorism the main items on the agenda.
Experts expressed different opinions on this issue. The former under secretary general for disarmament affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, recognizes that nuclear terrorism is a major threat to international nuclear security. But he told reporters at Xinhua that, in order to create nuclear security, it is necessary to move one step farther and work toward total weapons disarmament, and not to unilaterally stress non-proliferation. He believes that the reason why nuclear materials and nuclear technology are in danger of being abused is because many countries still consider the possession of nuclear weapons to be a symbol of international status.
The Brookings Institution's national security expert, Michael O’Hanlan, said that America’s decision to give up a certain flexibility of its use of nuclear weapons in its nuclear strategy and reduce its stock of nuclear weapons will help Obama demand that other countries work hard to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote nuclear security. Thus, this decision is not a blind request from America for disarmament.
James Acton, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament expert, told Xinhua reporters that nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism are a major threat to every country. In order to meet this challenge, every country needs to cooperate more. For example, countries need to reach an agreement at the Nuclear Security Summit and safeguard the security of nuclear materials. Furthermore, the Security Council needs to encourage cooperation and make certain that those who do not comply with the rules of nuclear non-proliferation are punished.
The Concept of a Nuclear-Free World May be Postponed
It was exactly a year between the time that Obama gave a speech about the concept of a nuclear-free world in Prague on April 5, 2009, and the day when the Nuclear Posture Review was released. The review was originally supposed to be released in December. According to media reports, one of the reasons why the review was delayed was because the Department of Defense was preparing to release an evaluation that suggested continuing with the status quo. The White House intervened and made major revisions to the Nuclear Posture Review when it became aware of this.
Compared to previous Nuclear Posture Reviews, there are two things that are different with the newest Nuclear Posture Review. Besides the fact that it describes nuclear disarmament in new ways, one of the most remarkable parts of the review is that America has stated it will not use nuclear weapons to fight if attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Acton has commented that America previously believed it had the right to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a biological or nuclear attack.
Even though the report is more progressive, its contents are not about to create a nuclear-free world. Obama said in a statement, “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries.”
Acton believes that America cannot unilaterally disarm its nuclear weapons, nor can it implement any excessive policies concerning nuclear disarmament. Considering its current strong need for a nuclear arsenal, America might wait to make bigger steps toward disarmament, when it can guarantee that disarmament will not jeopardize security. Miller also pointed out that the new security environment requires the United States to continue to strengthen its regional security system, as well as take measures to strengthen deterrence against regional threats, which include guided missile defense systems, conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
Thus, as America takes a step toward a nuclear-free world, it is also taking other steps to preserve its ability to immediately attack any part of the world, and increase the security of itself and its allies.
Analysts believe that this recently announced report is driven by new ideas and intentions. America issued this review before the Nuclear Security Summit, which will deliberate on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the hopes that it can guide international cooperation on nuclear security and non-proliferation, as well as set the agenda for the dialogue on nuclear weapons.
Emphasis on Nuclear Strategic Balance
After the Cold War ended, America’s Department of Defense previously issued two other Nuclear Posture Reviews, but the most recent one is both different from and clearer than the other reviews. It emphasizes the concept of nuclear strategic balance.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller said on April 6 that this third report is the most comprehensive, and that it is the only report of which all the contents have been made public. He said the new strategy in the report emphasizes the balance between America’s and other countries’ nuclear capabilities, as well as the balance of American deployed weapons and nuclear stock. A Department of Defense official who wished to remain anonymous told the media on April 5 that the report repeatedly mentioned the word “balance.”
According to the content, this new report is neither very extremist nor very conservative. It states that any party lacking nuclear weapons that did not sign and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty could use nuclear weapons. But the report did not announce that the unsigned country could not use weapons first. The report stated that America would reduce its nuclear weapons stores and reduce the importance of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy; however, America could still keep some weapons to use as a nuclear deterrent and provide nuclear protection to its allies. The report also stated that America would no longer develop new nuclear weapons and would stop nuclear testing, but made it clear that America would continue to develop conventional weapons and would not restrict its guided missile defense system.
The report indicates that the United States will take a step toward limiting the use of nuclear weapons, promising to only consider using nuclear weapons under the most extreme circumstances. Still, it would protect its own country’s security, as well as the security of its allies. Its long-term goal is to limit the use of nuclear weapons so they are only used as a deterrent against countries who want to start a nuclear war against America and its allies.
Understanding Nuclear Agenda Setting
It is thought provoking that the United States decided to publish the Nuclear Posture Review before attending the Nuclear Security Summit and signing a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.
On April 8, Obama will leave for Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, and sign a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russian President Medvedev. Next week, the Nuclear Security Summit will be held in America’s capital, Washington. Leaders and government officials from 47 countries will talk about ways to ensure global nuclear security in the next four years. Additionally, the United Nations will hold a conference deliberating on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May to further strengthen global nuclear disarmament and prevent proliferation.
After the Nuclear Posture Review was issued, Obama issued a statement emphasizing the importance of every country's compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and promising that America would comply with this treaty. This statement clearly sends the signal: Obama hopes to make nuclear non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear terrorism the main items on the agenda.
Experts expressed different opinions on this issue. The former under secretary general for disarmament affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, recognizes that nuclear terrorism is a major threat to international nuclear security. But he told reporters at Xinhua that, in order to create nuclear security, it is necessary to move one step farther and work toward total weapons disarmament, and not to unilaterally stress non-proliferation. He believes that the reason why nuclear materials and nuclear technology are in danger of being abused is because many countries still consider the possession of nuclear weapons to be a symbol of international status.
The Brookings Institution's national security expert, Michael O’Hanlan, said that America’s decision to give up a certain flexibility of its use of nuclear weapons in its nuclear strategy and reduce its stock of nuclear weapons will help Obama demand that other countries work hard to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote nuclear security. Thus, this decision is not a blind request from America for disarmament.
James Acton, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament expert, told Xinhua reporters that nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism are a major threat to every country. In order to meet this challenge, every country needs to cooperate more. For example, countries need to reach an agreement at the Nuclear Security Summit and safeguard the security of nuclear materials. Furthermore, the Security Council needs to encourage cooperation and make certain that those who do not comply with the rules of nuclear non-proliferation are punished.
The Concept of a Nuclear-Free World May be Postponed
It was exactly a year between the time that Obama gave a speech about the concept of a nuclear-free world in Prague on April 5, 2009, and the day when the Nuclear Posture Review was released. The review was originally supposed to be released in December. According to media reports, one of the reasons why the review was delayed was because the Department of Defense was preparing to release an evaluation that suggested continuing with the status quo. The White House intervened and made major revisions to the Nuclear Posture Review when it became aware of this.
Compared to previous Nuclear Posture Reviews, there are two things that are different with the newest Nuclear Posture Review. Besides the fact that it describes nuclear disarmament in new ways, one of the most remarkable parts of the review is that America has stated it will not use nuclear weapons to fight if attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Acton has commented that America previously believed it had the right to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a biological or nuclear attack.
Even though the report is more progressive, its contents are not about to create a nuclear-free world. Obama said in a statement, “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries.”
Acton believes that America cannot unilaterally disarm its nuclear weapons, nor can it implement any excessive policies concerning nuclear disarmament. Considering its current strong need for a nuclear arsenal, America might wait to make bigger steps toward disarmament, when it can guarantee that disarmament will not jeopardize security. Miller also pointed out that the new security environment requires the United States to continue to strengthen its regional security system, as well as take measures to strengthen deterrence against regional threats, which include guided missile defense systems, conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
Thus, as America takes a step toward a nuclear-free world, it is also taking other steps to preserve its ability to immediately attack any part of the world, and increase the security of itself and its allies.