by Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n
City Journal <\/em>(April 2010)<\/p>\n President Obama has announced a new American policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons (the \u201cNuclear Posture Review\u201d). According to the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>, \u201cFor the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.\u201d<\/p>\n Given our inability to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation, the president apparently wants to assure countries seeking nukes that there is no advantage in gaining a nuclear deterrent, since we would not use such weapons against them if they remained in line with nonproliferation statutes. We had previously asked the Iranians to desist by several deadlines \u2014 by the U.N. meeting in New York, the G-20 summit, face-to-face negotiations, and the first of the year. All were ignored.<\/p>\n So Obama\u2019s fallback position has come down to something like this: \u201cWhy get a nuke, when we won\u2019t use one against you \u2014 no matter what you do to us? But get a nuke \u2014 and all bets are off.\u201d He apparently views such reasoning as superior to the existing presumption that could be condensed as: \u201cDon\u2019t dare get a nuclear weapon, much less consider using one, since the consequences for you will be too terrible to contemplate.\u201d<\/p>\n In some sense, Obama\u2019s announcement is also the logical d\u00e9nouement to a number of lofty campaign promises in which he pledged to cut back on what he called \u201cunproven missile defense systems,\u201d not to \u201cweaponize space\u201d or \u201cdevelop nuclear weapons,\u201d to \u201cset a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,\u201d to \u201cseek a global ban on the production of fissile material,\u201d and to \u201cachieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.\u201d So the Nuclear Posture Review is part of this larger utopian vision whose enactment in part we have already seen in the recent nuclear agreements with Russia and the pullback of missile defense from the Czech Republic and Poland. Again, all of it is nobly intended, and in its particulars not so different from some of the objectives set out long ago by the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations. But three grave concerns nevertheless arise.<\/p>\n First, the president putting forth this comprehensive agenda is not an old hawk like Reagan or the Bushes, but rather one who has apologized, bowed, and backpedaled abroad in courting enemies like Syria and Iran while snubbing old friends such as Britain and Israel. Context matters. Fairly or not, the world will see these latest pronouncements as more in line with the abstract idealism of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate than with the leader of the world\u2019s sole superpower, on whom billions in the real world rely to keep the peace through deterrence.<\/p>\n Further, Obama is currently engaged in an ongoing war against radical Islam, whose adherents seek to gain weapons of mass destruction. He operates in a landscape in which nuclear proliferation is on the rise from Iran to North Korea, and when a host of other anti-American autocracies such as Syria and Venezuela either boast about their desire to obtain nuclear weapons or have already stealthily built reactors. The timing, in other words, could not be worse. Appearances also matter.<\/p>\n Second, the American people will not stand for any Commander-in-Chief ruling out, in advance, the use of nuclear weapons, even in the event that the nation is attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Just imagine: al Qaeda conducts a deadly anthrax attack in Manhattan that kills thousands, while the architects of such destruction retreat to underground sanctuaries along the Afghan-Pakistani border; or Hezbollah operatives release nerve gas in an American mall that is traced directly to a plant in the Iranian desert. I doubt seriously whether any president would rule out the use of a tactical nuclear weapon if it militarily proved the best option to prevent further carnage.<\/p>\n Third, ambiguity is essential in nuclear poker. All nuclear states must at some point play the game. A potentially aggressive state never quite knows how bad the reaction might be should it gamble and initiate an attack \u2014 and this is what keeps the peace. Predictability and limiting options on the part of responsible states only invite unpredictability and the expansion of choices for known bad actors.<\/p>\n Remember, too, that the problem of nuclear weapons does not involve democracies. No one loses sleep over a democratic America, Britain, France, India, or Israel trying to threaten in preemptive fashion other responsible nations. The worry is instead over the combination of autocracy and nuclear capability. Autocratic countries usually look to force, not philosophy or dubious international assurances, when they calibrate their own nuclear policies. The magnanimous promise to non-nuclear Iran that it can continue to subsidize terrorism without worry of an American nuclear response \u2014 even to a truly devastating attack on the U.S.\u2014will probably not convince Iran to stay non-nuclear. More likely, such assurances will only hasten Iran\u2019s proliferation policies, on the assumption that if the U.S. is already reaching out and offering concessions before the theocracy goes nuclear, just imagine what could be wrung out of the Obama administration when Teheran finally gets its bombs.<\/p>\n So these well-meant gestures are both ill-timed and ill-conceived \u2014 all the more so in coming from someone who, in just 14 months in office, is attempting to overturn numerous bipartisan American foreign policies of a half-century, largely on the premise that the United States in some fashion has been in the wrong and needs to make amends to an array of belligerents.<\/p>\n \u00a92010 Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" President Obama’s new nuclear policy is ill-timed and ill-conceived. by Victor Davis Hanson City Journal (April 2010) President Obama has announced a new American policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons (the \u201cNuclear Posture Review\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[589],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-qf","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":10716,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/who-gets-to-have-nuclear-weapons-and-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":0},"title":"Who Gets to Have Nuclear Weapons \u2014 and Why?","author":"victorhanson","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"By Victor Davis Hanson\/\/ National Review \u00a0 The rules used to be controlled by two big powers, but not anymore. \u00a0 Given North Korea\u2019s nuclear lunacy, what exactly are the rules, formal or implicit, about which nations may have nuclear weapons and which may not? \u00a0 It is complicated. \u00a0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "China"","block_context":{"text":"China","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/china\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":11249,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/strategika-issue-51-nuclear-proliferation\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":1},"title":"Strategika Issue 51: Nuclear Proliferation","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Should More Nations Have Nukes? Please read a new essay by my colleague, Gordon G. Chang in Strategika. There is only one weapon that poses an existential threat to the United States, so why should America want other nations to possess it? The simple answer is that Washington\u2019s nonproliferation policy,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Strategika"","block_context":{"text":"Strategika","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/strategika\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1629,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/obamas-nuclear-naivety\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":2},"title":"Obama’s Nuclear Naivety","author":"victorhanson","date":"April 30, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"The problem is not nuclear weapons per se, but who has them. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online The Obama administration has celebrated its recent efforts to sign a nuclear-weapons accord with Russia and the hosting of a nuclear non-proliferation summit in Washington \u2014 all silhouetted against grandiose promises\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "April 2010"","block_context":{"text":"April 2010","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2010\/april-2010\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4351,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/korea-our-bad-and-worse-choices\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":3},"title":"Korea: Our Bad and Worse Choices","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 29, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson American Enterprise Institute Magazine The North Korean crisis offers only bad and worse choices for the United States. Kim Jong Il cultivates an air of lunacy, and threatens to nuke the Western critics who are more concerned with the plight of his North Korean people than\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "June 2005"","block_context":{"text":"June 2005","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2005\/june-2005\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1103,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-consequences-of-bad-ideas\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":4},"title":"The Consequences of Bad Ideas","author":"victorhanson","date":"December 4, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Advantage: Russia. Disadvantage: The United States. The Obama Way. by Bruce S. Thornton RightNetwork.com The New START Treaty with Russia that President Obama is eager to have the Senate ratify is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. We can start with the details of the treaty itself. While\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bruce S. Thornton"","block_context":{"text":"Bruce S. Thornton","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/bruce-s-thornton\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4135,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/why-no-nukes-for-iran\/","url_meta":{"origin":1627,"position":5},"title":"Why No Nukes for Iran?","author":"victorhanson","date":"February 17, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"The rules of the game. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online How many times have we heard the following whining and yet received no specific answers from our leaders? \"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?\" \"Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it.\" \"Who is to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "February 2006"","block_context":{"text":"February 2006","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2006\/february-2006\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1627"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1627"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1628,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1627\/revisions\/1628"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}