Obama’s get rid of nukes stance a smart move
The more I think about it, the more I like Obama’s get rid of nuclear weapons stance.
Not because I think it will work. You can not uninvent science. I don’t think it will suceed in its stated goal.
But it may suceed in some other goals – stopping further proliferation and reducing the current stockpile.
The growing number of countries with nukes is of major concern. I trust the big five powers (and Israel) to use them responsibily. They don’t threaten their neighbours with them. But the world is a far less safe place now India and Pakistan have them, let alone Iran and North Korea. And sooner or later one of them will do something stupid with them, and/or give the technology to terrorists. We should not accept this as inevitable.
But the problem is it is hard to pressure countries not to take them up, when the major powers (and Israel) all have them and are saying we are keeping ours.
The dynamic that Obama brings is he is willing to say “We’ll get rid of ours, if you get rid of yours”. Now it won’t quite happen like that, but it will make it harder for other countries to justify their acquiring of nuclear weapon technology. They will be swimming against the tide so to speak.
Also the policy may lead to significant reductions in current stocks. By saying let us get rid of them all, he may get China and Russia to agree to reduction of greater than 50%.
So while I am realistic that the policy will not suceed per se, I think it will be beneficial overall.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
You are more trusting than me, I would not be surprised if Israel lobbed a Nuke at one of it’s neighbours ( Iran most likely as a bunker buster to stop Iran’s nuclear programme ), a country that believes it can “tell” the US President what to do ( if only in it’s own mind ) is dangerous.
Having said that, the overall objectives are great, I mean how many nukes do you really need to be able to kill 1/2 the global population in 10 hours, or more accurately convince any country that they will be nothing in 5 hours if they really play up ( North Korea for instance needs a gentle reminder that 3-5 countries each have 10+ nukes each pointing their way ).
April 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I agree with Nigel It a great idea in theory but the nutter leaders in Nth Korea Iran and the terrorists wont take any notice and the worst case scenario would be a partial disarmament that leave rogue states and groups with the capability.
The genie was let out the bottle 65 years ago and it aint going back in again
April 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Obama’s strategy is to convince the Europeans that US concern over Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons progrgammes is not a product of Bush’s imagination. I’m sure he’s sincere in wanting to see the end of all nuclear weapons but the immediate task at hand which he’s addressing are rogue nations and he has to convince the international community that collective action is called for.
We are presently seeing in the Securoiy Council the failure of collective action over North Korea. Obama is saying to the international community it’s time to stop using Bush as an excuse for doing nothing.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
“The more I think about it, the more I like Obama’s get rid of nuclear weapons stance.”
Yeah.
Jimmy Carter rides again.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Nah, nukes are fine in the hands of countries too afraid to use them for fear of being obliterated in the reply, frankly I think it was the threat of MAD which refrained the world from starting another global war since the end of WW2.
Its only when they get in the hands of countries not afraid of wiped out in the reply that worries me.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Bring back Buck!
Woops, I mean: Bring back the edit!
[DPF: I have someone looking at why the edit function ceased. A mystery so far]
April 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
And what would those benefits of this be, pray tell?
Indeed all Obama has done is offer empty words. I am reminded of the old tale of the mice belling the cat.
I can’t even see France reducing its Nuclear Capability, let alone nutters like Ahmadinejad. The best you can hope for is the public destruction of old weapons – their capability degrades with time due to the breakdown of their fissible material, to be replaced with a lesser number of more effective ones.
When all is said and done this world is ruled by violence and the only thing that restrains it is the threat of greater violence against the perpetrator. the last sixty years of relative peace has maintained by USA’s nuclear arsenal and the good fortune democracy and the 22nd amendment prevent the “President for life” phenomenon that afflicts some less enlightened nations.
Still it is an example of “feel good” rhetoric and it does warm the cockles of a western liberals heart – to that extent it works.
Meantime an ancient song from a Harvard Mathematician has something todd.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
>By saying let us get rid of them all, he may get China and Russia to agree to reduction of greater than 50%.
Who cares how many China and Russia have? It is the handful owned by North Korea and Pakistan that are the worry. Or the potential that Syria or Iran get hold of any at all. A disarmament scenario where stable first world countries are disarmed but unstable dictatorships have nuclear weapons is worse than the current situation.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There are a few other aspects to this:
The US is developing anti-ballistic missile weapons. These can be expected to stop a few missiles, but a large scale launch could easily overwhelm them. If everyone scales down their missile stockpile, the missile defense system becomes more practically useful. Russia in particular is aware of this, and will therefore be hesitant to reduce its missile stockpile. With the US pushing for nuclear disarmament and Russia opposing, the US can expect to pick up increased support and influence amongst the peace-niks in europe, who were estranged by the Bush administration’s more blunt (and honest) approch.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
So while I am realistic that the policy will not suceed (sic) per se, I think it will be beneficial over
David, your support of this ban is interesting, more particularly your statement above, which sounds very much like something the Greens would say, with regard the various changes they would like to see.
[DPF: Occassionally we agree!]
April 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
This sounds a lot to me like the previous government’s “carbon neutrality” nonsense.
Great for headlines and that’s about all.
Several nations have given up their nuclear arsenals following the end of the Cold War(and apartheid) but I can’t see any of the current crop following suit.
The former Administration’s policy of Regime Change remains a powerful disinsentive to leave yourself open to attack.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Look why are we even bothering with what Obama is saying (reading from his teleprompter). Just get the policy release from Soros and cut out the middle man.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
This is hopelessly optimistic. (1) The US will be called hypocritical because they are not complying with their own stated policy. (2) Rogue states will use the stated policy as a justification for obtaining nuclear weapons (Obama just said it was fine to have them so long as other people have them). (3) To date international pressure and isolation have done nothing to prevent Iran or North Korea from developing nukes. What has changed now?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
An American President putting forward a morally superior ideal and then not following through.
Hmm.
It won’t work.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I sincerely doubt that Obama truly believes that the United States or any other significant nuclear power will get rid of **all** their nuclear weapons. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and I’d say that just the fact that people know how to make nuclear bombs will be enough to ensure the major powers maintain a nuclear arsenal indefinitely.
But, like DPF, I think this is astute politics from the US in terms of neutralising some of the arguments that aspiring nuclear powers might raise (or, more correctly, their supporters and sponsors might raise). This is a way to get up a leg up in a moral argument.
Nuclear weapons are a political tool, not a military weapon. They’ve been used militarily twice, but then in all the subsequent wars we’ve had no one has pulled out the nuclear option – they’re just not a practical military tool. But they’re a constant political lever. Countries like Iran & North Korea make a lot of noise about nuclear weapons because they’re such an effective bargaining tool. Arguably neither is currently able to make a functioning nuclear device, and certainly they’re years away from having a deliverable weapon. But banging the nuclear drum gets them a level of international attention that they can’t get any other way.
So what the US is doing is calling that political bluff and taking the high ground. It’s geo-politics.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
paradigm … I think you’ll find the Russians will be quite happy to sign up to further reductions beyond the SORT commitments.
All the nuclear powers have arsenals based on 1980s designs, built & maintained by an ageing workforce that’s rapidly retiring, and all well beyond their original serviceable life. The costs of maintaining those stockpiles and their associated delivery systems is crippling. Even the US would like to see reductions for just that reason. Russia, who’re really struggling with funding their military, are in an even worse situation. The Brits & French too would like to see ways to step back from the huge spend they have maintaining their (small) deterrents.
I think you’ll see significant agreements to reduce the major powers’ nuclear arsenals signed in the next 12-18 months.
I think it was significant that in the recent Obama-Medvedev meetings at the G20 this seemed to be the only thing that Russia and the US could actually reach agreement on. Their post-summit press conference talked about this as being the big win, suggesting that they couldn’t agree on other major issues like the Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics, NATO expansion, BMD siting in Europe, support for Iran’s Bushehr reactor, shipping supplies to Afghanistan via Russia etc etc.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Reckon the actual target group is the “peacenik” American voter. Obama needs to get re-elected and the peaceniks played a big role in 2008. Imagine what happens in 2012 if troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting “terrorism” – the peacenik vote might stay home. But now they will be motivated, they will support Obama. They will vote Democrat, because peaceloving Obama is going to get rid of nuclear weapons and the his warmongering Republican challenger is not*.
* actual number of nuclear weapons used in arsenal of each candidate unlikely to differ, but that is politics.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Damn lack of an edit function …
All the **major** nuclear powers have arsenals based on 1980s designs …
The minor/aspiring nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran etc) have arsenals based on 1960s designs. None of them have demonstrated any ability to develop thermonuclear bombs (aka hydrogen bombs).
April 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
unaha-closp. I think you’ll find that Obama’s making political hay from a US decision to reduce its nuclear stockpile. In other words, they were going to decommission a number of warheads and now Obama’s (very astutely) making a virtue of a necessity. He can claim they’re on a path to nuclear disarmament, which probably isn’t ultimately true, but it’s a good enough story for the foreseeable future.
In the next 24 hours Robert Gates is going to announce the next US defense budget. Informed rumour is that it will include killing a number of high-profile and high-expense line items. It would seem the US is genuinely trying to step back from a lot of its big-ticket military spend and redirecting a lot of that spend towards “realistic” programmes that will help them in low-intensity conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. A move to reduce the spend on nuclear bombs would be in line with that. Rather than going after the peacenik vote (who Obama’s got in the bag no matter what he does on nuclear weapons).
April 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I know that some of those big-ticket items are for the chop or at least in for serious reduction. The F22 Raptor being one of the high-profile and high-budget items that has already faced a decrease in orders and will get whacked back again. As you have pointed out the nuke warheads are already those marked for decom. The scale-back of basically cold war weaponry has been occurring for quite some time, the concern is that “That one!” will continue a slow down of military expenditure at the expense of giving the impression that the military are not a major priority in his vision of “change” & “hope” (whatever they are).
But he has to at least be seen to be doing some “changing” and giving his plebs some “hope”. In short, it’s short term hopey, changey rhetoric and a continuation of his socialist plan to de-fang the United States and give ultimate authority to his UN mooooslim arse-licking mates. It’ll back-fire, there is a serious dislike of this guy amongst a large portion of the US population despite the adoring, hypnotized legions of obamatrons, both there and overseas. The impression he gives to the enemies of the US is of an appeasing weakling, impressions count believe me. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, “that one!” is an empty suit.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Brother, brother, brother you may well be right but “that one!” will never stop using Bush as his excuse for anything. Bush is the perfect scapegoat for all and every crisis that “that one!” will be involved in. The baritone dancing monkey is an arsehole of the highest degree, he’s in this game for money, power and glory. I’ve never seen anyone so stuck up their own rear end. Sorry guys, way off topic but I hate this guy like no one ever before, I know his type.
I’m calm……breathe deeply…….LOL
April 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Maybe the U.S. could rearm with Neutron Bombs and Germ filled missiles instead. The advantage with these weapons is that they only kill people and don’t cause damage to buildings or infrastructure while still having a deterrent effect.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
That is a good point, baxter. There are all sorts of nasty “weapons of mass destruction”, getting rid of nukes wouldn’t really result in absence of deterrent.
And Bevan:
# Bevan (1418) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“Nah, nukes are fine in the hands of countries too afraid to use them for fear of being obliterated in the reply, frankly I think it was the threat of MAD which refrained the world from starting another global war since the end of WW2.
Its only when they get in the hands of countries not afraid of wiped out in the reply that worries me.”
The point, Bevan, is not so much countries not afraid of being wiped out, as the helpless citizens of countries with totalitarian nutters as leaders, who have no say in the matter.
And Lawrence Hakawai:
“…..The former Administration’s policy of Regime Change remains a powerful disincentive to leave yourself open to attack….”
Actually, given that most of the regimes that need changing do not in any way truly represent their enslaved peoples, regime change is really the only valid solution.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Typical Obama. Style over substance. Load of tosh designed to cover up the fact that he has no idea without an autocue.
Why doesn’t he just go on about world peace as an “aspirational goal” by 2012 or something equally unrealistic?
Less nukes would be good (unless the aliens/zombies come!) but back here on planet Earth reality still applies. I would prefer a CinC who spoke of realities not pipe dreams.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Nigel (122) 2 3 Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
“You are more trusting than me…..”
Dead right, Nigel.
Who honestly believes that every government in the world with nukes could be trusted to not stash a few away in view of the day when all the other nations have done the honourable/stupid thing and disarmed?
Can’t you just hear Ahmadinejad on TV?
Hahahahaha (evil laughter) ……….fools……… Israel is no longer………and there is nothing anyone can do about it…….nothing!!!!!……. Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa…………
April 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
But here is something else that I am very very serious about. Commenters above are right, Obama intends to take the axe to all US military spending, including secret programs.
I am sure that the US has some significant military advantages that most of us know nothing about. But I have shuddered to think what the fate of that military advantage could be when someone like Obama becomes President.
Regular Kiwibloggers will know what I have been saying all along about Obama. At best, he is the black FDR. At worst, he could be the black American Vidkun Quisling. I pray it ain’t so.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I have believed for a long time that the official US position on development of anti-missile defences, being that this is something “in progress”, is a red herring. I reckon they have had the ability to take out ballistic missiles for a long time.
It is this kind of military advantage that I fear for.
The loss of US military secrets in the Bill Clinton years was frightening. It is about to happen again, only a lot worse.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Sorry, last point (I too am missing the edit)
Nukes can be planted in cities without the aid of a missile, of course.
Sleep well, everybody.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As long as Nth Korea, Pakistan etc continue to think in terms of mounting their nukes on ballistic missiles, we can breathe easy – because no doubt the US capability to shoot down a ballistic missile (technology which does not exist – shhhhh
) will be very intently focussed on the launch sites of these missiles.
I agree with DPF it will be a major worry when disaffected little terrorist f*ckers start to have nuclear weapons within their grasp. I don’t see how reducing the stockpiles of the major powers will help this. But the USA doesn’t need to be able to obliterate the surface of the earth 5 times over. Once or twice should be enough!
April 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
PhilBest,
“Commenters above are right, Obama intends to take the axe to all US military spending, including secret programs.
I am sure that the US has some significant military advantages that most of us know nothing about. But I have shuddered to think what the fate of that military advantage could be when someone like Obama becomes President.”
Let me get this straight. Obama is to be damned for allegedly cutting spending to things that may or may not exist, giving the US some unspecified advantages over enemies that may or may not exist or come into being. I assume the point of this is that if and when something bad happens to the USA, it was Obama’s fault because he stopped the secret programme that would have stopped it (whatever it is)? This is brilliant. You guys sure lay your groundwork far in advance!
April 7th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
PhilBest … I think you’ll find that the Americans are re-prioritising defence spending away from big ticket items and towards “practical” stuff.
Roughly along the lines of … each B-2 Spirit costs near as US$1 billion in lifetime costs, but the US Army can’t afford to armour up all its HUMVEEs. Likewise there’s a push back against developing any more manned aircraft post the F-35, and instead focussing on UAVs.
So Obama isn’t necessarily looking to cut back on “capability spend”, as much as reprioritise it towards stuff that will actually be used. There’s no need to be 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world in fighter aircraft, when you can be 1 generation ahead and have all the Army travelling around in new mine/IED-resistant vehicles.
This change in thinking actually started under Bush, when Gates replaced Rumsfeld. Obama re-appointed Gates as SecDef, presumably endorsing this same change in thinking.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The point, Bevan, is not so much countries not afraid of being wiped out, as the helpless citizens of countries with totalitarian nutters as leaders, who have no say in the matter.
Coutries, leaders, argueing symantics……
April 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
And in a speech today to the Turkish Parliament B Hussein Messiah Obama declared he is “a muslim”
Or more correctly B Hussein Messiah Obama’s TelePrompter declared he is a Muslim, either way I am sure that is going to go down like a ton of bricks in the USA.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Not quite right big bruv
The actual soundbite was
However Al Jazeera reported it the way you described and who the hell knows how it came out in the Turkish and arabic translations.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I’m surprised you characterize this as a departure from current U.S. policy. As a nuclear weapons state and a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty since 1968 the US is bound to take part in good faith negotiations towards nuclear disarmament.
Now clearly several developments during the last presidency make it politic to restate this committment and I agree it is probably a good thing, but it is just a reiteration of the status quo, certainly of the status quo ante 2000.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:36 am
China is increasing its nuclear stockpile and no amount of empty rhetoric from Obama is going to change that military reality. That’s what you get when you scrap SALT II and built your own anti-ballistic missile system for multiple site usage.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Virtualmark, I understand what you are saying, but you can bet that the real big money is being spent in the areas of secret military advantage, like the ability to knock out ballistic missiles. That is just an example.
I would rather find out about such military advantages by hearing one day that the US military just stopped Armageddon from happening, much to the dismay of the people who thought they were starting it; rather than hearing about them from a peacenik President who announces that he is giving them away.
As for AG’s comment above, the only way I can make any sense of it is that he presumes that NZ and the world would be better off without the USA’s protection of civilisation; better off under a series of Communist power blocs, Fascist dictators, and stone age Theocracies. You just can’t have a sensible debate with anyone that thinks that way.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
incidentally, Ratbiter, if you think that existing nuke stockpiles would be enough to destroy the entire surface of the world, you are seriously underestimating the total surface area of the world. I don’t say that exploding the entire stockpile would be anything other than disastrous for mankind, but cold war military calculation always included the impossibilty of any nuclear strike destroying the entire arsenal of the other side. I have read some interesting stuff years back on the Chinese Communist Party’s hardcore element studying the possibility of organising a large-scale survival of a nuclear exchange.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am
PB:
I wouldn’t try making sense of my comments. This will just hurt your head. For the record though, I think the USA has done some good things (beat fascism in WWII, drove back Serbian nationalism in the Balkans) and some crap things (Vietnam, collusion in Indonesia’s actions in East Timor). You see, I don’t just have a black/white view of the world. Sorry if you find this hard to understand. Nuance does require effort.
My original point was that your claims about super-secret US defence initiatives and Obama’s attitude to them are inherently unprovable, and so of little value. By the same token, I can allege that Obama is making a deal with the Vesuvian Marsh People to intevene if and when the Islamo-Fascists threaten us. Now -disprove it.
On the other hand, anyone after some laughs (mainly of disbelieving shock) at the expense of PB’s super secret US initiatives to save the world might care to view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_At_Goats (soon to be a movie!)
April 8th, 2009 at 10:52 am
RENAULT: Marshes? What marshes? We are on a mountain.
RICK: I was… misinformed.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Obama appears to me to be repeating all the policies of the 1930′s. Massive government spending in the mould of FDR.
And a massive reduction in armaments as the Western powers did in the 1930′s especially in the area of battleships and other naval weaponry.While Hitler and others rearmed with the latest tanks and planes and U Boats Britain and France dawdled along taking the moral high ground and only waking up to reality very late through the constant warnings of Winston Churchill.
The USA may be on its own as a superpower but given enough neglect of its armaments who knows if other countries may play along with America while secretly rearming themselves?
I wonder whether Obama will be remembered as another FDR or as the American Neville Chamberlain?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
There is a larger play here. Obama agreeing with Medvedev on bilateral reductions of strategic warheads (a la SALT) shows commitment to the cause. The just announced US defense budget already shows the US intent to reduce the strategic component of the nuclear arsenal because, quite frankly, a thermonuclear exchange between the US and Russia is improbable over the near term and both government budgets could use the financial relief. More importantly, this announced intent and bilateral moves to that effect will reinvigorate the moribund Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which as the name implies is oriented towards A) preventing the spread of nukes and B: denuclearizing the nuke weapons states. It has never reached point B and has not been effective at achieving point A, so the thrust of Obama’s comments are at using B to get A, with a specific view towards “rogue” states such as Iran and North Korea.
The third part of the equation is to reaffirm the problems of non-state actors with nukes, including low-yield radioactive weapons colloquially referred to as “Suitcase bombs.” Those are the real and imminent threat due to the nexus of illegal arms trafficking, narcotics and jihadis. The idea behind the speech is to show understanding of the need to underscore the moral disutility of nuclear weapons in order to get assistance from Western criminals and profiteers to prevent the transfer of fissile material to Islamic extremists or their patrons.
The problems with this policy (outside of the right wing backlash within the US) are at least threefold: 1) if everyone eliminated nuclear weapons from their arsenals that would leave the US as the unparalleled conventional power, thus there would be no deterrent to its assaults. No adversary with nukes will accept this; 2) Nukes are effective deterrents. One nuke in Iran’s hands will make the US or anyone else think twice before it mounts an assault for whatever reason (North Korea does not matter because it simply does not have anything other than South Koreans would want and even the SK’s do not want it THAT much). No matter where the Iranians may wish to target their nukes (Jerusalem, Riyhad, Ankara, Dubai or Kabul which is what they could realistically reach) and no matter the fact that they will be potentially obliterated in response, Iran having a demostrable nuke capability alters the strategic equation for all concerned. No wonder the Israelis are considering a pre-emptive strike, for which the Saudis and all other Sunni governments would be (secretly) grateful ; 3) because of the above, lesser nuclear powers or aspiring nuclear powers have no incentive to follow suit beyond supporting the reinvigoration of the NPT and quashing of non-state actor nuclear ambitions.
One final point. Any reductions offered in the US-Russia bilateral negotiations are easy concessions to the realities of the present era. Both countries understand that there is no such thing as MAD anymore given present weapons system accuracies (measured in meters after long ICBMS flights), so focusing on counter-value targets like cities is irrational given the counter-force capabilities such as hardened silos, bunkered storage or C3I left intact (both US and Russian nuclear strategy doctrines of the last twenty years speak to the utility of a “flexible response” nuclear war-fighting capability from the tactical to the theater and eventually strategic level). This gives priority to so-called tactical nukes designed for theater conflicts against adversaries devoid of a strategic response in kind, and makes reducing strategic nuclear weapons (especially land-based warheads) much more palatable given their diminished utility. War-planners in all of the nuclear states may wish to keep some strategic response in reserve, but the issue of nuclear weapons usage is now a tactical one–think Tora Bora and the utility of bunker busting tactical nukes as well as nuclear ASW mines in choke points, to mention just two possible (and practicable) options.
I tried to summarise this on Jim Mora’s panel session yesterday (April 7), but am not sure that my points got through. I shall write more about this in Scoop or kiwipolitico later. My reason for saying all of this is that am troubled by the lack of understanding of modern nuclear strategy in NZ, as well as its ideological polarisation.
Apologies for the long post.