Political Evolution of the USA
Published in Argenpress
(Argentina) on 9 April 2010
by Andrei Fediashin (link to original)
The U.S. president, Barack Obama, finally announced the new nuclear doctrine for his country in a report entitled “The Nuclear Posture Review.”
The publication of this report, the summary of a more extensive document to be presented to Congress, has long been awaited and delayed since December of last year.
Obama’s nuclear doctrine marks a remarkable departure from the strategy of George W. Bush. On April 5, 2009, in Prague, Barack Obama promised to buttress control over offensive arms strategies, drastically reduce nuclear arsenals and free to the world of nuclear threat. However, the policy document published a year later turned out to be much more moderate.
Nowadays, we all understand that a world free of nuclear weapons will continue to be a utopian idea, even in 10 or 20 years. Nevertheless, such expressions coming from the 44th American president, just following George W. Bush, are music to the ear.
Obama’s nuclear doctrine could be considered revolutionary in comparison with Truman’s era. If this strategy had existed at the end of World War II, President Harry Truman would not have been able to order the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to the new policy, Washington is committed to refrain from using nuclear weapons against States that do not own them, provided they observe the Treaty of Non-proliferation and they do not represent a real threat for the national security of the USA.
In emphasizing these two last conditions, Washington references Iran and North Korea, whose continued nuclearization gravely alarms the international community.
Any change in the U.S. nuclear strategy by the White House triggers great worry, and Obama’s revision is no exception.
The Republicans do not support it; the document policy envisages modernizing the existing arsenals rather than developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. Those who favor disarmament think that the new doctrine has little in common with the emotional principles that Obama had voiced in Prague.
The latter regard this policy not as a revolutionary motion, but merely an improvement on President George W. Bush’s policies. President Bush had discarded almost all the possibilities for disarmament and real control over nuclear weapons, except in theory, and reserved to the U.S. the right to wage local nuclear wars and to launch preventive and punitive nuclear attacks under the pretext of “non-proliferation.”
Although the Obama doctrine does not yet proclaim disarmament, it is an important step forward in restricting the scope of strategic weapons offensives.
The new strategy recognizes that "the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up."
We must salute the democratic Barack Obama. The first black president in the history of the USA who, unlike any of his predecessors who had occupied the Oval Office in the last 100 years, managed to initiate a substantial reform of public health, deserves praise for succeeding in including important new clauses in the Nuclear Posture Review.
The American Administration commits itself to abstain from using nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them and to stop considering Russia and China as the main sources of nuclear threats.
Also, Washington is committed to ending the development of new nuclear warheads, concentrating instead on the modernization of conventional weapons, the prohibiting of nuclear tests and the resignation of the plans for developing new types of strategic and offensive weapons promoted during George W. Bush’s presidency.
It seems that Obama has the courage to touch upon sensitive subjects like the national security of the U.S. as the greatest world power, even while being confronted by the increasing influence of the Republican opposition.
Obama was obliged to find formulas of compromise with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who also held this position under George W. Bush. Robert Gates (and the Pentagon, respectively) agreed to not develop new types of nuclear warheads and to stop the tests only after prevailing upon Obama to increase the budget for the maintenance and modernization of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenals.
Obama did not discard the option of using nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess them. He would be naive to believe that any resident of the White House would voluntarily give up his right to use them when he considers them necessary. The Pentagon would never accept it.
Obama’s achievement resides in making it more difficult to press the button. Judging by the delay in the publication of the document, he had to go through many maneuvers and concessions to the Department of Defense, as well as consideration for the opinion of the Republicans in the Senate.
Too much nuclear radicalism could frustrate the ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed on April 8 in Prague.
The USA also did not suspend its plans to reverse the anti-missile shield. Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvédev had many issues to discuss in Prague.
The publication of this report, the summary of a more extensive document to be presented to Congress, has long been awaited and delayed since December of last year.
Obama’s nuclear doctrine marks a remarkable departure from the strategy of George W. Bush. On April 5, 2009, in Prague, Barack Obama promised to buttress control over offensive arms strategies, drastically reduce nuclear arsenals and free to the world of nuclear threat. However, the policy document published a year later turned out to be much more moderate.
Nowadays, we all understand that a world free of nuclear weapons will continue to be a utopian idea, even in 10 or 20 years. Nevertheless, such expressions coming from the 44th American president, just following George W. Bush, are music to the ear.
Obama’s nuclear doctrine could be considered revolutionary in comparison with Truman’s era. If this strategy had existed at the end of World War II, President Harry Truman would not have been able to order the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to the new policy, Washington is committed to refrain from using nuclear weapons against States that do not own them, provided they observe the Treaty of Non-proliferation and they do not represent a real threat for the national security of the USA.
In emphasizing these two last conditions, Washington references Iran and North Korea, whose continued nuclearization gravely alarms the international community.
Any change in the U.S. nuclear strategy by the White House triggers great worry, and Obama’s revision is no exception.
The Republicans do not support it; the document policy envisages modernizing the existing arsenals rather than developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. Those who favor disarmament think that the new doctrine has little in common with the emotional principles that Obama had voiced in Prague.
The latter regard this policy not as a revolutionary motion, but merely an improvement on President George W. Bush’s policies. President Bush had discarded almost all the possibilities for disarmament and real control over nuclear weapons, except in theory, and reserved to the U.S. the right to wage local nuclear wars and to launch preventive and punitive nuclear attacks under the pretext of “non-proliferation.”
Although the Obama doctrine does not yet proclaim disarmament, it is an important step forward in restricting the scope of strategic weapons offensives.
The new strategy recognizes that "the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up."
We must salute the democratic Barack Obama. The first black president in the history of the USA who, unlike any of his predecessors who had occupied the Oval Office in the last 100 years, managed to initiate a substantial reform of public health, deserves praise for succeeding in including important new clauses in the Nuclear Posture Review.
The American Administration commits itself to abstain from using nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them and to stop considering Russia and China as the main sources of nuclear threats.
Also, Washington is committed to ending the development of new nuclear warheads, concentrating instead on the modernization of conventional weapons, the prohibiting of nuclear tests and the resignation of the plans for developing new types of strategic and offensive weapons promoted during George W. Bush’s presidency.
It seems that Obama has the courage to touch upon sensitive subjects like the national security of the U.S. as the greatest world power, even while being confronted by the increasing influence of the Republican opposition.
Obama was obliged to find formulas of compromise with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who also held this position under George W. Bush. Robert Gates (and the Pentagon, respectively) agreed to not develop new types of nuclear warheads and to stop the tests only after prevailing upon Obama to increase the budget for the maintenance and modernization of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenals.
Obama did not discard the option of using nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess them. He would be naive to believe that any resident of the White House would voluntarily give up his right to use them when he considers them necessary. The Pentagon would never accept it.
Obama’s achievement resides in making it more difficult to press the button. Judging by the delay in the publication of the document, he had to go through many maneuvers and concessions to the Department of Defense, as well as consideration for the opinion of the Republicans in the Senate.
Too much nuclear radicalism could frustrate the ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed on April 8 in Prague.
The USA also did not suspend its plans to reverse the anti-missile shield. Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvédev had many issues to discuss in Prague.