April 6, 2010 7:33 PM

A Layman's Guide to Obama's Nuclear Posture Review

By
Marc Ambinder
Topics
Foreign Policy ,
White House

(Credit: AP)
Don't worry. You don't have to read all 72 pages of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to understand some of the finer points of Armagaddeon-gery.

Here's a guide to some of the key debates -- and key questions -- about President Obama, nuclear weapons, and terrorism. In other words, a layman's guide to understanding what the wonks are talking about?

"Negative Security Assurance"

Here's what the NPR says:

" ....the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing 'negative security assurance' by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT] and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

"This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

The idea is to use the NPT as the objective guideline. If a non nuclear country adheres to its obligations, the U.S. won't use nukes against it -- ever -- which means that European countries won't use nukes either.

Big caveat: ever means the opposite -- the U.S. reserves the right to change its mind if other countries develop significant new chemical, biological or conventional warfare capabilities that pose a direct threat to the U.S. and its allies.

No Sole Purpose?

James Miller, the Pentagon official who co-wrote the final draft of the NPR, said that task force participants had indeed discussed whether it was time to limit the use of nuclear weapons to respond to countries that also possess them.

"The conditions today don't exist to go to a sole purpose statement for U.S. nuclear weapons," he said. "That was ultimately a decision by the president."

The NPR states that "[t]he role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security and military strategy has been reduced significantly in recent decades, but further steps can and should be taken at this time."

We're getting to it... "The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners."

Fundamental doesn't mean "sole" -- although the NPR does list sole purposes as an objective that the U.S. wants to move to.

The international political dimension to this question is complex: many of our allies are divided about the extent to which our nuclear deterrent, as robust as it is, contributes to proliferation.

But in private, the elected leaders of our allies tend to tell our presidents that they would be nervous about -- "unsettling" was how one administration official put it -- changing the umbrella metaphor under which their security is guaranteed.

De-Alerting

Should U.S. nuclear weapons be on hair trigger alert? Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, when the president decides to use a nuke, the nuke should respond instantly to his direct command. On the other hand, the Cold War posture was set up in such a way as to deprive human beings of reaction time -- time to think through consequences.

The struggle to balance acuity and decision science is not new. Since the Cold War, the U.S. has taken one element of its nuclear triad -- subs, missiles and airplanes -- off of alert status. But bombers and their pilots remain ready at moment's notice, and it's very easy to re-target a missile within seconds.

So what happens if a missile is launched accidentally? Its navigation systems will lead it to splash in an ocean. This is what the military calls "open-ocean targeting."

Gen. James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the U.S. strategic command continues to "architect" a system that would "increase decision time, increase assurety, and put the pieces together in an architecture that would give the president higher confidence that he had complete control of the stockpile."

Tactical Nukes

Command and control is controversial and sensitive. Sensitive, because we as a public don't know whether battlefield commanders have the authority to order the use of so-called non-strategic nuclear weapons -- smaller nukes -- tactical nukes.

That remains highly classified. Russia has many more tactical nukes than we do, and their rules of engagement are similarly shrouded in mystery.

The question of tactical nukes is one Cold War legacy that the NPR punts on. Robert Einhorn, a top administration adviser on counterproliferation, said that NATO members were wary of any unilateral change to the rules of engagement, and so NATO will take up this issue as a collective -- and the U.S. and Russia plan to talk about it in the future.

Missile Defense

To the dismay of some in the arms control community, the administration seems to embrace a robust missile defense architecture for Europe.

Notably, the recently concluded START follow-on treaty did not include any significant limitations on missile defense -- a strategic victory of sorts for the United States.

The NPR makes missile defense a centerpiece of the U.S. deterrent umbrella, which would allow, in theory, less reliance on nuclear weapons to serve as that deterrent. That's the trade-off: find more conventional ways of deterring nuclear threats.

Terrorists and Nukes

So the rejoinder to the increased reliance on missile defense is this: terrorists aren't going to use missile systems, Mr. President. True, but that's a straw man argument, so far as the administration is concerned.

By strengthening the conventional deterrent, by using the Non-proliferation Treaty as a framework for enforcement and incentives, the United States hopes to create an international mechanism to deal with non-state actors who want to acquire and deploy nuclear weapons.

So missile defense plays an indirect role in deterring nuclear terrorism, according to the NPR. In any event, missile defense is normally associated with defense hawks -- that's a Cold War legacy.

It is not clear what the NPR's embrace of it as a concept means for the actual deployment of systems in Europe and elsewhere, which is something Republicans point to today as an indication that the NPR isn't strong enough.

New, More Restrictive Nuclear Policy Unveiled
David Martin: A Major Shift in America's Nuclear Defense Policy
Analysis: Obama Goes Nuclear
Giuliani Calls Nuclear Policy "Left-Wing Dream"
Nuclear Posture Review Report(PDF)


The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder is CBS News' chief political consultant. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow him on Twitter.


Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by rickwar April 7, 2010 8:12 AM EDT
The pro right hawk comments on this show the continuing lack of knowledge and knee jerk reaction they generally show.

Even after these reductions and the change in policy, the US, Russia, China, India, Israel, France, England, Pakistan, have enough stockpiles of nuclear weapons to be sure that everyone on the planet is dead several times over.

The US has 9,000 nuclear war heads of which 2600+ are active at the moment, Russia has 12,000 with 4,650 active, China about 180, France 300, England 180+ other countries are estimated to have about 300 more.

More than enough even with reductions there are more than enough to assure MAD (mutually assured destruction) the other term used is Overkill.

For those that think this gives the terrorists an edge, think again. Generally terrorists are dedicated groups, smaller, not aligned with any specific country. So if terrorists attack, are you going to use nuclear weapons on some country that you suspect was behind it with little or no proof? Of course the right would, just look to Iraq and the lies that led us there.

Lost in all this is the idea of parity that was attempted by the US and the Soviet Union to build down from MAD. This was rejected by Republicans even when brought forward by Republicans.

It's obvious that terrorists are not deterred by the size of a countries nuclear stockpile. Using the thought process of the right and hawks and on many comments here if this idea work there would be no terrorists. Sort of like the death penalty---you can have it, use it but it won't deter the majority of criminals or twisted minds from not doing the crime.

Contrary to the start of this article it might just do some good to read the 72 page document.

It might be worth thinking about the last decent Republican that was in office, who also happened to be a soldier.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

These statements today from a right wing candidate or president would bring the shout of "Weak! Democrat! Destroying the country!" Or worse.

And perhaps this says it best from the person who helped bring this about:

Albert Einstein
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George- April 7, 2010 10:30 AM EDT
Every Democrat pork project and bribe/payoff is a theft from those who hunger.....right ? every wasted Trillion in the name of Stimulus is a theft from those who are cold and not clothed....right ?

Funny how only the money used to defend us, is considered stealing from the hungry, yet money wasted on pork projects and failed social programs is never considered "stealing from the hungry"......Right Lib ?
by rocketjl April 7, 2010 11:42 AM EDT
Is the song and dance over yet? Keep trying to justify what Obama is saying. If you are going to try to blow smoke in our ear, try to make it more believable. This is the American people you are talking to, not one of Obama's pile of democrat lackeys.
by gunslug50 April 7, 2010 2:06 AM EDT
Let me get this straight.. Secretary of Defense Robert Gate want gays to defend our country and now President Obama want to disarm our Nukes and top of that we want to erase GOD's name from our Dollar Bill.
I think our Government want this country to run as a socialist State.
"The End of the World"(2012) is coming sooner than expected!
Reply to this comment
by AOCGUY April 7, 2010 9:08 AM EDT
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
by onebythesea April 6, 2010 11:30 PM EDT
Are we that stupid to have such a dumb approach to the serious threat that these countries have against us and our allies? Just because we say we are dropping our gun does not mean the haters won't kill us. I do not think theirs is retoric. They mean it when they say things like "wipe them off the face of the planet". This is a sign of more weakness and stupidity by our enemies.
We need a true leader with the ability to lead forcefully against these enemies of ours.
Reply to this comment
by doctor_know April 7, 2010 1:01 AM EDT
What good are nuclear weapons against terrorist threats? In fact, don't they increase the chances of terrorists getting their hands on radioactive material?
by doctor_know April 7, 2010 1:01 AM EDT
What good are nuclear weapons against terrorist threats? In fact, don't they increase the chances of terrorists getting their hands on radioactive material?
by erichsh April 6, 2010 10:51 PM EDT
I can reduce Obama's plan to two words: "unilateral disarmament".
Reply to this comment
by doctor_know April 7, 2010 1:02 AM EDT
Don't you wish?
by pickaside April 6, 2010 9:51 PM EDT
You are divided. That's what they want. You are easily persuaded. That's what they want. You do nothing. That's what they want. You choose one side. That's what they want. You have been wasting your time. That's what they want. I'm an American who watches others place blame. For what? To get where? Democrats place blame and pimp you for your vote. Republicans place blame and pimp you for your vote. Your fault. If you can't see past this game they are playing on you, us, our future, then we lose. It's not Bush. It's not Obama. It's the politicians. It's their plan that benefits them. They tell us what they want us to hear, then do what they want. I love America. Do you?
Reply to this comment
by RobAla April 6, 2010 9:21 PM EDT
03/06/10 CBS News:
The new policy "focuses on preventing nuclear terrorism and proliferation and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, while sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States and our allies," according to an Obama administration official, who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity because the NPR had not yet been released.

Really? These weapons have not been used in 65 years, so why does he think our current policy is not working? What does "narrow the circumstances under which the United States would use such weapons" have to do with "preventing nuclear terrorism and proliferation?" This statement from the administration makes little sense. It sounds more like setting policy where we may tie our own hands.

Other questions which should be asked:
1) Why is the President doing this at this time?
2) Does he expect that the talks with Iran and North Korea will actually lead to nuclear war?
3) What gives this administration (one least experienced in anything other than community organizing), the expertise to make the right call?

I mean, any victory we see today in Iraq is the result of the President carrying out the policies of President Bush. While being Senator Obama, he was against those policies - so they aren't his. He was against he surge; a tactic which worked. What does he know about he subject?

I do not trust what he has done with health care, and domestic issues are the ones for which he has the most experience. I am concerned with his domestic agenda, and I am even more concerned with his understanding of foreign policy and national defense.

We are not living in Nirvana, but rather planet earth. We can not afford to live in a pretend world, and our President does us a disservice to do so. God help us.
Reply to this comment
by kaylag04 April 6, 2010 9:05 PM EDT
Perhaps, if we send our enemies a sacraficial citizen a month, and some money, and renounce all that we believe in...maybe then they'll like us respect us!
Reply to this comment
by doctor_know April 7, 2010 1:05 AM EDT
wow, sarcasm is a very advanced trait.... impressive.
See all 14 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook