The current Nuclear Posture Review, which was made public on Feb. 2, is arguably among the most ill-thought documents ever issued in our nation’s history. Here’s why:
The spending on a new generation of nuclear weapons it proposes will divert badly needed resources from conventional defense preparedness, according to former Pentagon officials Andrew Weber and Brian McKeon. There is no way to pay for these new weapons without deepening the already cavernous national debt.
It ignores our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It reverses a generation-old effort at arms control and arms reduction, thereby igniting a new and more dangerous arms race. Even in its present reduced state, our nuclear arsenal can kill off humanity six or seven times over. According to General John E. Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, our present nuclear deterrent is entirely sufficient.
It pays almost no attention to major threats from nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
It stresses the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, which it claims are suitable for battlefield use. Even the least of these weapons is 15 times more powerful than the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) that fell on Afghanistan, with radioactivity added to the damage. There is no rational battlefield application for such weapons.
It promotes concurrency, the practice whereby schedules for testing, development, and production of new weapons overlap. The end result is the production and deployment of poorly tested and developed weapons. A prime example is the F-35, the most poorly tested, developed, and expensive military aircraft in human history.
It proposes nuclear weapons as a response to both conventional and nuclear threats, with no precise definition of what those threats or our essential interests are. It thereby blurs the distinction between conventional and nuclear war.
It presumes to tell our allies what their essential interests are, without providing for any consultation or partnership in advance.
It ignores the potential civilization and life-ending effects of nuclear winter.
It assumes our nuclear attack alarm systems are error-free, despite an extensive record of false alarms like the one in Hawaii this year.
It slights and weakens diplomatic efforts to reduce international tensions.
Given its vague definitions of threat and national interest, it undermines Congressional checks and balances on the president’s power to initiate war. It thereby subverts Congress as a co-equal branch of our government, with baleful effect on our Constitution.
If there was ever a clear and present danger to our republic, the current Nuclear Posture Review is it.
(John Raby lives in New London.)