Ever since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, US political leaders, strategic thinkers and military officers have argued, sometimes vehemently, over guidelines for using nuclear weapons. In one such discussion, a prominent “nuclear theologian” stopped to say: “Of course, none of us really knows what he is talking about because we have no empirical feedback on nuclear war.”
Fred Ikle, the nuclear strategist who was an undersecretary of defense in the administration of former US president Ronald Reagan, later drew lessons from six decades of nuclear history in his 2006 book, Annihilation From Within. Among them: Benevolence is not enough to stave off a nuclear confrontation and it takes courage to comprehend the enormity of a nuclear war.
Into this context US President Barack Obama and his administration stepped last week with their “Nuclear Posture Review” and the new START treaty signed by Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev. Both were intended to reduce the threat of nuclear war but both seemed likely to rouse vigorous scrutiny at home and abroad.
Indeed, a thrust of Obama’s nuclear policy has little to do with nuclear conflict. The president’s doctrine focuses on nuclear terror and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But US nuclear missiles can’t fight nuclear terror when a bomb might be delivered in a rusty cargo ship and not likely to be of much use against a nation refusing to give up the nuclear arsenal it is forging.
The review says: “Today’s most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism. Al-Qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons. We must assume they would use such weapons if they managed to obtain them.”
It continues: “The availability of sensitive equipment and technologies in the nuclear black market” makes it possible that “terrorists may acquire what they need to build a nuclear weapon.”
On the spread of nuclear arms, the review says: “In pursuit of their nuclear ambitions, North Korea and Iran have violated non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council, pursued missile delivery capabilities, and resisted international efforts to resolve through diplomatic means the crises they have created.”
Neither Iran nor North Korea, moreover, has displayed any evidence that either is disposed to responding to incentives or pressure; the review proposes nothing new to confront them. It acknowledges only that unless today’s trends are reversed, “before very long we will be living in a world with a steadily growing number of nuclear-armed states and an increasing likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons.”
On China, the posture review says China has only a few missiles capable of hitting the US but fails to note that it has apparently adopted a strategy of minimal deterrence. China’s arsenal includes 20 Dongfeng (East Wind) 31 missiles that are mobile and thus hard to target. Chinese leaders evidently believe these would survive a US attack and could be launched at US cities.
With Russia, Obama has rejected the deterrence of the Cold War, the review asserting “the nature of the US-Russia relationship has changed fundamentally,” Russia no longer being an adversary.
The New Start treaty, which must be approved by the US Senate, reflects that assessment. The posture review, however, notes that “Russia continues to modernize its still-formidable nuclear forces.”
The Obama doctrine appears to ignore a basic principle of military power, which holds that strategy and forces should be calculated on the capabilities rather than the intentions of a potential adversary. Capabilities, including weapons and training, take a long time to acquire; intentions can change in a short time.
Finally, the posture review fails to mention the nuclear forces of India, Pakistan and Israel and where they might fit into the president’s hopes of diminishing the chances of nuclear conflict.
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer in Hawaii.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
RSS