Via the NYT: Obama to Urge Elimination of World’s Nuclear Weapons
Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
This is a fundamentally unserious proposal.
There is no doubt that nuclear weapons are hideously powerful and terrible. Indeed, unlike al Qaeda, the nuclear-powered Soviet Union did have the power to truly end the United States as a living entity.
However, the nuclear cat (perhaps Schrödinger’s) is out of the bag and there is no putting it back. The knowledge is out there, the weapons exist and this fact is one that all states and their leaders must address. No proposal, no wish will change that fact. Indeed, like it or not the realistic likelihood is that there will be proliferation over time. The incentives for states to acquire the weapons are too strong and the ability of other states in the international system to stop that acquisition is too weak.
Further, despite the potential harm represented by these weapons, the argument can (and has) been made that the basic stability of the international system during the Cold War was the direct result of the presence of the nuclear arsenals of the US and USSR. Because of the risk of triggering a global conflagration the two sides avoided direct confrontation, and thereby WWIII, for roughly five decades. Even on a regional level the argument can be made that India and Pakistan avoided war earlier this decade over Kashmir as both sides knew that escalation of the dispute could have lead to a nuclear exchange. As such, the question of nuclear weapons is a bit more complicated than Obama appears to be acknowledging.
As a campaign issue this is one of those that perhaps sounds good and visionary, but really indicates that the candidate is either cynically trying to manipulate a specific segment of the electorate with fantastical proposals or that the candidate really doesn’t understand the world with which he will have to deal as President.
There is no doubt that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists is incredibly frightening , but the answer isn’t proposing impossible policies.
Update:
James Joyner has more. James is a bit less critical than I, but ultimately is in basic agreement with my position.
Update II: Post edited for typos and an awkward sentence.
Sphere: Related Content
You are so right. The nuclear bomb is now in more countries and more that would never give them up.
Comment by Mark — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 11:55 am
Obama Urges Elimination of Nukes
Off The Table:
Trackback by RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 1:57 pm
It strikes me as a sign of his naivety and evidence that he is not politically experienced enough for the office.
I like some of what he has had to say, but he also often seems to make these types of statements that seem way off base for how the international system really works.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 3:00 pm
Ah, yes, the latest foreign policy utterance from the candidate who suggests war with Pakistan.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 5:47 pm
While getting rid of nuclear weapons would certainly be difficult (i.e. 5% chance of happening) I think the U.S. seriously pursuing that goal would change the entire dynamic on the issue.
If you could get the 5 major powers to agree to give up their nuclear weapons, you could supercede the NPT and create a much larger, more indepth nonproliferation regime with all nuclear materials controlled by a UN agency. All nuclear development outside the UN could be a cause for military action. With the major powers having already given up their nuclear weapons, they would not take the side of a third rate power to block military action, which has been the largest impediment to the original vision of the UN as a international security enforcement agency.
Comment by Joe Mucia — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 8:32 pm
Sorry to double post, but I think Kos has the best rejoinder to the “unserious” charge.
Comment by Joe Mucia — Tuesday, October 2, 2024 @ 8:47 pm
I don’t think Obama is naive so much as nice. Nice guys want people to be nice.
Well, maybe you can’t be nice without being naive.
In response to Joe’s suggestion that all nukes be controlled by the UN: Doesn’t your proposal mean essentially that there is no way of getting everyone to get rid of their nukes without someone keeping them (to ensure that everyone else gets rid of theirs)?
If so, the question would have to be, “Why the UN?”
Comment by Micah Tillman — Wednesday, October 3, 2024 @ 7:59 am
While the nuclear bomb was undoubtedly a force for stability during the latter part of what Philip Bobbitt calls “The Long War,” I wonder if it will continue to be so in the twilight of the nation-state, as non-state actors play a larger and larger role in international politics. There may be realistic scenarios in which nuclear weapons become destabilizing–and certainly, the push by certain elements in the U.S. government to makes nukes just another tactical weapon will play a role in any of those.
Comment by Dave Trowbridge — Thursday, October 4, 2024 @ 6:22 am