Edited by Katy BurtnerPosts
America’s Struggles toward Nuclear Disarmament Can Not Be Blamed on China
The reference to China’s nuclear project not being transparent in the American Nuclear Posture Review is obviously an intentional misrepresentation of China’s nuclear strategy. In recent years, America has frequently been involved in cooperation with its allies in Asia regarding nuclear weapons, including designs on China that, although not clearly articulated, obviously existed. Therefore, it is America, not China, that must now be transparent.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called a press conference on the sixth to announce the publication of the Nuclear Posture Review and declared that the U.S. would reduce its nuclear arsenal, cease its development of nuclear weapons and give nuclear weapons less of a role in its national security strategy. He did not, however, promise no first use of nuclear weapons. Yet, in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, Russia is mentioned 88 times, and China 37 times. China has even been labeled as a nation with a “lack of transparency,” which has attracted a great deal of attention from international commentators.
Setting Their Sights on Ten Countries
A few days ago, the Obama administration announced a new U.S. nuclear policy that is without historical precedent: America will not use nuclear weapons against nations that do not possess them. This means that the eight countries that have nuclear weapons, including Russia, China and India, will become targets for America’s massive nuclear arsenal.
American commentators are also speculating that countries such as Iran and Syria will not be exempt. International media have quickly taken to referring to America’s nuclear targets as the “8+2.” This policy of Obama’s is thought to have been in preparation for the nuclear summit held in Washington on April 12th, but due to its extremely sensitive nature it has been subject to a slew of criticism and conjecture. In many countries, media assessments of this policy’s effect on their national security have had a frantic air to them. The South Korean media have rejoiced at the fact that the North is still within America’s sights, while the Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted that “Obama’s new nuclear age does not bode well for Israel.”
Equally, some experts have referred to America’s actions as a “knife concealed with a smile.” According to one European television network, this has contributed to America’s high moral standing and has blocked the attempts of countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the nuclear threat was what the world most feared. Obama’s policies are aimed at dismantling the nuclear engine. But who would have thought that the process of dismantling itself could be even more dangerous? Every country must, with the greatest caution, promote substantial worldwide denuclearization.
The new nuclear policies recently announced by the Obama administration have provoked mixed reactions from across the world. For staunch pacifists, the new policy is music to the ears. Everyone is waiting to see whether or not Obama can go on to implement the new policy and take it further.
Nevertheless, no matter which way you look at it, America has an unavoidable responsibility to slim down its enormous nuclear arsenal. Put simply, the nuclear arms race has long been America’s debt to world peace. We hope to see Americans repaying that debt soon and working hard toward a more secure world.
A sensible course for America would be to make appropriate adjustments to its nuclear strategy, taking its own national interests as a starting point and taking the new international situation into account. But some Americans seem to think that this is a huge contribution to the world and that they should therefore begin to make demands of it in return. For example, in the Nuclear Posture Review, which details this new nuclear policy, a number of experts have accused China of a “lack of transparency in its nuclear program, which makes its neighbors in Asia and the U.S. uneasy.” This truly undermines the imposing figure of the world’s number one power and will inevitably lead people to speculate as to whether or not the U.S. has something to hide behind its nuclear disarmament banner.
China in a “Nuclear Ring of Encirclement”
Through its new nuclear policy, America hopes to increase its moral influence, relieve tensions with Russia, and achieve its aim of isolating and bringing sanctions against Iran and North Korea. This is certainly in line with American interests. However, some Americans blame China for not only not allowing them to score points, but also possibly causing them to seriously lose out. This is because, of all the nuclear strategies, of all the nuclear nations in the world, China’s is the most responsible.
Given the vast expanse of its territory, China’s security situation is correspondingly complex, but its nuclear arsenal is very limited, focused solely on counterattack in self-defense. China has always taken a serious and responsible attitude toward nuclear security and nuclear management procedures are extremely rigorous, so much so that even American experts believe that, as China maintains a policy of keeping nuclear deterrence to a minimum and of no first use, China’s nuclear weapons would be the easiest target of any pre-emptive strike. Therefore, the most important aim for China’s nuclear stockpile is to survive any first use of nuclear weapons by an enemy, in order to maintain sufficient counterattack capability.
Viewed from this angle, the reference to China’s nuclear project not being transparent in the American Nuclear Posture Review is obviously an intentional misrepresentation of China’s nuclear strategy. It should be noted that, at one point, America had several hundred nuclear warheads pointed directly at China. Even today, America’s ship-based nuclear weapons can, in a very short period of time, turn around and have China “at gunpoint.” And yet, over the last few years, America has frequently been involved in cooperation with its allies in Asia regarding nuclear weapons, including designs on China that, although not clearly articulated, obviously existed. Therefore, it is America, not China, that must now be transparent. China is the only major nation located within a “nuclear ring of encirclement.”
Nuclear States Must Take Responsibility
In recent years, countries across the world have made great efforts toward military restraint and nonproliferation, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction and with satisfactory results in many areas. U.S. President Obama’s suggestion of a “nuclear-free world” last year will have a positive effect on negotiations over nuclear restraint and on disarmament. But even if nuclear proliferation comes to a halt, the nuclear policies of nuclear states will still be of paramount importance.
First of all is the process of nuclear disarmament between the two superpowers. Although there have been a large number of cutbacks, their significance has been far more symbolic than practical. Secondly, current disarmament is not irreversible. Nuclear powers are simply getting rid of their nuclear warheads by storing them away in warehouses; they could most definitely be used again should the situation change. Third, if we want to build a non-nuclear world, currently a distant dream, then nuclear states must take a little more responsibility instead of forever allowing non-nuclear states to assume this duty or that obligation. Fourth, nuclear states should abandon “pre-emptive” strategies. Refusing to allow people to develop nuclear weapons while threatening them with nuclear weapons — and moreover planning first use of nuclear weapons — is clearly of no help whatsoever to the processes of military restraint and disarmament. Fifth, nuclear states should take steps to prevent nuclear weapons from being updated. This vital point is applicable to the whole world. We hope that nuclear states can be responsible powers.
As Chinese, we wish more than any other people of this world to see it become a non-nuclear world. Looking to the future, denuclearization will be beneficial to China’s long-term security. But if America appears to be all talk and no action, or plots against China, then the current goodwill of the Chinese people will soon wear thin.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called a press conference on the sixth to announce the publication of the Nuclear Posture Review and declared that the U.S. would reduce its nuclear arsenal, cease its development of nuclear weapons and give nuclear weapons less of a role in its national security strategy. He did not, however, promise no first use of nuclear weapons. Yet, in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, Russia is mentioned 88 times, and China 37 times. China has even been labeled as a nation with a “lack of transparency,” which has attracted a great deal of attention from international commentators.
Setting Their Sights on Ten Countries
A few days ago, the Obama administration announced a new U.S. nuclear policy that is without historical precedent: America will not use nuclear weapons against nations that do not possess them. This means that the eight countries that have nuclear weapons, including Russia, China and India, will become targets for America’s massive nuclear arsenal.
American commentators are also speculating that countries such as Iran and Syria will not be exempt. International media have quickly taken to referring to America’s nuclear targets as the “8+2.” This policy of Obama’s is thought to have been in preparation for the nuclear summit held in Washington on April 12th, but due to its extremely sensitive nature it has been subject to a slew of criticism and conjecture. In many countries, media assessments of this policy’s effect on their national security have had a frantic air to them. The South Korean media have rejoiced at the fact that the North is still within America’s sights, while the Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted that “Obama’s new nuclear age does not bode well for Israel.”
Equally, some experts have referred to America’s actions as a “knife concealed with a smile.” According to one European television network, this has contributed to America’s high moral standing and has blocked the attempts of countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the nuclear threat was what the world most feared. Obama’s policies are aimed at dismantling the nuclear engine. But who would have thought that the process of dismantling itself could be even more dangerous? Every country must, with the greatest caution, promote substantial worldwide denuclearization.
The new nuclear policies recently announced by the Obama administration have provoked mixed reactions from across the world. For staunch pacifists, the new policy is music to the ears. Everyone is waiting to see whether or not Obama can go on to implement the new policy and take it further.
Nevertheless, no matter which way you look at it, America has an unavoidable responsibility to slim down its enormous nuclear arsenal. Put simply, the nuclear arms race has long been America’s debt to world peace. We hope to see Americans repaying that debt soon and working hard toward a more secure world.
A sensible course for America would be to make appropriate adjustments to its nuclear strategy, taking its own national interests as a starting point and taking the new international situation into account. But some Americans seem to think that this is a huge contribution to the world and that they should therefore begin to make demands of it in return. For example, in the Nuclear Posture Review, which details this new nuclear policy, a number of experts have accused China of a “lack of transparency in its nuclear program, which makes its neighbors in Asia and the U.S. uneasy.” This truly undermines the imposing figure of the world’s number one power and will inevitably lead people to speculate as to whether or not the U.S. has something to hide behind its nuclear disarmament banner.
China in a “Nuclear Ring of Encirclement”
Through its new nuclear policy, America hopes to increase its moral influence, relieve tensions with Russia, and achieve its aim of isolating and bringing sanctions against Iran and North Korea. This is certainly in line with American interests. However, some Americans blame China for not only not allowing them to score points, but also possibly causing them to seriously lose out. This is because, of all the nuclear strategies, of all the nuclear nations in the world, China’s is the most responsible.
Given the vast expanse of its territory, China’s security situation is correspondingly complex, but its nuclear arsenal is very limited, focused solely on counterattack in self-defense. China has always taken a serious and responsible attitude toward nuclear security and nuclear management procedures are extremely rigorous, so much so that even American experts believe that, as China maintains a policy of keeping nuclear deterrence to a minimum and of no first use, China’s nuclear weapons would be the easiest target of any pre-emptive strike. Therefore, the most important aim for China’s nuclear stockpile is to survive any first use of nuclear weapons by an enemy, in order to maintain sufficient counterattack capability.
Viewed from this angle, the reference to China’s nuclear project not being transparent in the American Nuclear Posture Review is obviously an intentional misrepresentation of China’s nuclear strategy. It should be noted that, at one point, America had several hundred nuclear warheads pointed directly at China. Even today, America’s ship-based nuclear weapons can, in a very short period of time, turn around and have China “at gunpoint.” And yet, over the last few years, America has frequently been involved in cooperation with its allies in Asia regarding nuclear weapons, including designs on China that, although not clearly articulated, obviously existed. Therefore, it is America, not China, that must now be transparent. China is the only major nation located within a “nuclear ring of encirclement.”
Nuclear States Must Take Responsibility
In recent years, countries across the world have made great efforts toward military restraint and nonproliferation, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction and with satisfactory results in many areas. U.S. President Obama’s suggestion of a “nuclear-free world” last year will have a positive effect on negotiations over nuclear restraint and on disarmament. But even if nuclear proliferation comes to a halt, the nuclear policies of nuclear states will still be of paramount importance.
First of all is the process of nuclear disarmament between the two superpowers. Although there have been a large number of cutbacks, their significance has been far more symbolic than practical. Secondly, current disarmament is not irreversible. Nuclear powers are simply getting rid of their nuclear warheads by storing them away in warehouses; they could most definitely be used again should the situation change. Third, if we want to build a non-nuclear world, currently a distant dream, then nuclear states must take a little more responsibility instead of forever allowing non-nuclear states to assume this duty or that obligation. Fourth, nuclear states should abandon “pre-emptive” strategies. Refusing to allow people to develop nuclear weapons while threatening them with nuclear weapons — and moreover planning first use of nuclear weapons — is clearly of no help whatsoever to the processes of military restraint and disarmament. Fifth, nuclear states should take steps to prevent nuclear weapons from being updated. This vital point is applicable to the whole world. We hope that nuclear states can be responsible powers.
As Chinese, we wish more than any other people of this world to see it become a non-nuclear world. Looking to the future, denuclearization will be beneficial to China’s long-term security. But if America appears to be all talk and no action, or plots against China, then the current goodwill of the Chinese people will soon wear thin.