Obama's Nuclear Posture Review - More News

Bryan Bender reveals some possible indications of how the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is shaping up. It's interesting stuff, and slightly encouraging.

The review is shaping up to be a major showdown for Obama this year. It is taking on some of the most sacred cows of the nuclear program. For the first time, influential voices, including a former top nuclear commander and senior Obama advisers, are proposing that one leg of the nuclear arms “triad’’ - a $30 billion-a-year enterprise made up of land-, air-, and sea-based weapons - be eliminated.

Another historic change under consideration is adopting a “no-first-use’’ policy, a public declaration stating the United States would not use nuclear weapons first, a step long advocated by arms control advocates who believe it would reduce the incentive for other nations to develop nuclear weapons.

Also on the table, the officials say, is explicitly limiting the nuclear arsenal’s mission to deterring other nuclear weapons - not chemical or biological attacks or halting a massive conventional military assault, as current policy stipulates.
 ----------
 The Air Force’s 114 long-range nuclear bombers - including the B-52 and B-2 stealth bombers and more than 1,000 nuclear missiles - are believed to be the most vulnerable of the three legs of the triad.

Some former commanders and a growing number of specialists contend they have far less military value now that an all-out nuclear war with Russia is unlikely. Among them is retired General Eugene Habiger, former commander of the US Strategic Command, which oversees all US nuclear weapons, and the man who until 1998 was responsible for America’s nuclear war plan.

“I would recommend giving up the bomber leg,’’ he said in an interview. 

This makes a lot of sense, especially if you start with the fact that we aren't facing the Soviet Union and that there are other regional adversaries who have or may develop nuclear weapons. A "no first use" policy would significantly decrease tensions between the two major superpowers, not to mention encourage greater cooperation. The idea of retaliating against chemical or biological weapons with nuclear weapons was always asinine - it was when President Clinton's administration developed the policy, and it was when President GW Bush's administration continued it.

I am betting that the Air Force won't even object too much about the idea of eliminating the bomber leg of the triad. They could start thinking about retiring the B52 bomber from its strategic bombing mission, the maintenance of which has been costly. There's been more emphasis on "global strike" using non-nuclear weapon systems, and it would be even easier (not necessarily less costly) to develop a next-generation bomber that didn't have a nuclear mission. It's a win-win for everyone. We'll see how the Republicans face the fact that the Obama administration might actually have a winner in national security here.

Of course, visit the ArmsControlWonk for more serious discussion. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis talks about the 2009 NPR, and has a good discourse on "calculated ambiguity" (what I've also heard called "strategic ambiguity" - maybe we'll nuke yah and maybe we won't). Like Lewis (who notes that this policy is incoherent, not ambiguous), I don't care for this approach at all. 

UPDATE: See also CRS report, US Strategic Nuclear Forces, CFR publication on US Nuclear Weapons Policy, CSBA study, US Nuclear Forces, Stanley Foundation, Integrated US Nuclear Weapons Policy. I remember reading a study comparing the efficiencies/options for using two legs of the triad versus all three, but I can't find it right now. If anyone can jog my memory, send me a note.

Comments

[Ray]

A no-first-use policy: how is that arranged to assure others. I believe some people's word is their Bond (and I hope mine is) but do governments
have such a binding behaviour? The psychology of that part of the statement may add a dampener to percieved aggressive posture, but I don't see that it prevents others pursuing nuclear weapons development.
As for the B52, I shall miss it's menacing flights to the Line and return. Mandrake will be pleased; Dr Strangelove not so much.

[Ray]

PS I spelled perceived as percieved- just goes to show how easy it is to lapse.

[NVH]

Let's not be hasty here, what's the backup for no bombers? Subs I'm guessing? I'm all for global strike too, should combine it with UAVs and we can re-enact the opening salvo from the Psychlos in Battlefield Earth, wiht poison gas and all...