{"id":6175,"date":"2010-02-28T19:34:30","date_gmt":"2010-03-01T04:04:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/?p=6175"},"modified":"2010-02-28T19:34:30","modified_gmt":"2010-03-01T04:04:30","slug":"nyt-editorial-new-think-and-old-weapons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/?p=6175","title":{"rendered":"NYT Editorial: New Think and Old Weapons"},"content":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/28\/opinion\/28sun1.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Editorial<\/strong><\/p>\n

New Think and Old Weapons<\/h1>\n

Published: February 27, 2010<\/p>\n

Every four years the White House issues a \u201cnuclear posture review.\u201d That may sound like an anachronism. It isn\u2019t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons \u2014 and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly unquenchable nuclear appetites \u2014 what the United States says about its arsenal matters enormously.<\/p>\n

President Obama\u2019s review was due to Congress in December. That has been delayed, in part because of administration infighting. The president needs to get this right. It is his chance to finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America\u2019s credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators.<\/p>\n

Mr. Obama has already committed rhetorically to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But we are concerned that some of his advisers, especially at the Pentagon, are resisting his bold ambitions. He needs to stick with the ideas he articulated in his campaign and in speeches last year in Prague and at the United Nations.<\/p>\n

These are some of the important questions the posture review must address:<\/p>\n

THEIR PURPOSE: Current doctrine gives nuclear weapons a \u201ccritical role\u201d in defending the United States and its allies. And it suggests they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces \u2014 not just nuclear arms. Mr. Obama\u2019s aides have proposed changing that to say that the \u201cprimary\u201d purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. This still invites questions about whether Washington values \u2014 and might use \u2014 nuclear forces against non-nuclear targets.<\/p>\n

Given America\u2019s vast conventional military superiority, broader uses are neither realistic nor necessary. Any ambiguity undercuts Washington\u2019s credibility when it argues that other countries have no strategic reason to develop their own nuclear arms. The sole purpose of American nuclear forces should be to deter a nuclear attack against this country or its allies.<\/p>\n

HOW MANY: President George W. Bush disdained arms control as old think, and Washington and Moscow have not signed an arms reduction treaty since 2002. Mr. Obama launched negotiations on a new agreement that would slash the number of warheads each side has deployed from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The talks are dragging on, but there is hope for an agreement soon. Both sides should go deeper.<\/p>\n

The review should make clear that the United States is ready to move, as a next step, down to 1,000 deployed warheads \u2014 military experts say half that number is enough to wipe out the assets of Russia, which is no longer an enemy. China, the only major nuclear power adding to its arsenal, is estimated to have 100 to 200 warheads. The treaty being negotiated says nothing about the nearly 15,000 warheads, in total, that the United States and Russia keep as backups \u2014 the so-called hedge. And it says nothing about America\u2019s 500 short-range nuclear weapons, which are considered secure, or Russia\u2019s 3,000 or more, which are chillingly vulnerable to theft.<\/p>\n

The review should make clear that there is no need for a huge hedge, and that tactical weapons have an utter lack of strategic value \u2014 as a prelude to reducing both. Certainly no general we know of could imagine exploding a warhead on a battlefield. Today\u2019s greatest nuclear danger is that terrorists will steal or build a weapon. That is best countered by halting proliferation and securing and reducing stockpiles and other material.<\/p>\n

NEW WEAPONS: The United States built its last new warhead in 1989. So when aides to President George W. Bush called for building new weapons, with new designs and new capabilities, it opened this country to charges of hypocrisy and double standards when it demanded that North Korea and Iran end their nuclear programs.<\/p>\n

Mr. Obama has said that this country does not need new weapons. But we are concerned the review will open the door to just that by directing the labs to study options \u2014 including a new weapons design \u2014 for maintaining the arsenal. The government has a strong and hugely expensive system for ensuring that the stockpile is safe and reliable. Mr. Obama has already vastly increased the labs\u2019 budgets. The review should make clear that there is no need for a new weapon.<\/p>\n

ALERT LEVELS: The United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 weapons ready to fire at a moment\u2019s notice. Mr. Obama has rightly described this as a dangerous cold war relic. The review should commit to taking as many of those forces off hair-trigger alert as possible \u2014 and encourage Russia to do the same.<\/p>\n

In April, Mr. Obama will host a much needed summit meeting on the need to better secure nuclear material from terrorists. In May, Washington will encourage a United Nations-led conference to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the bedrock, and battered, agreement for curbing the spread of nuclear arms<\/p>\n

President Obama will also have to persuade the Senate to ratify the Start follow-on treaty, and we hope he will quickly press the Senate to approve the test ban treaty. He is also working with allies to revive nuclear talks with North Korea and to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Getting the nuclear posture review right is essential for moving all of this ahead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/28\/opinion\/28sun1.html Editorial New Think and Old Weapons Published: February 27, 2010 Every four years the White House issues a \u201cnuclear posture review.\u201d That may sound like an anachronism. It isn\u2019t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons \u2014 and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “NYT Editorial: New Think and Old Weapons”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[58],"class_list":["post-6175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-nuclear"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6175"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6175"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6177,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6175\/revisions\/6177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}