Abolishing the U.S. Nuclear War Plan Presentation by Robert S. Norris and the NRDC Nuclear Program Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Evolution of Deterrence The McNamara Years. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Defense,
Advertisements

Deterrence Deterrence is the effort by one actor to persuade another actor to refrain from some action by convincing the opponent that the costs will.
What is Game Theory? It is part of the theory of purposeful behavior commonly known as rational choice theory. It specifically focuses on situations with.
April 6, NPR in Context Third comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear policies and posture –Previous reviews in 1994 and 2001 Conducted by DoD.
Challenge of Nuclear Weapons
Bulletin of atomic scientists
Lecture Six Cold War Stability. The Cuban Missile Crisis Soviets Attempt to Place Nuclear Weapons in Cuba Is U.S. Willing to Risk War to Prevent This?
COLD WAR RECAP. INSTRUCTIONS Using your notes, unless otherwise noted, you will have 3 minutes per concept to answer as much as you can with your group.
Why are physicists silent? The Dangers of New US Nuclear Weapons Policies *Nuclear Posture Review: delivered to Congress December 2001 Represents a radical.
GO131: International Relations Professor Walter Hatch Colby College Nuclear Deterrence.
13 January 2005 Slide 1 National Defense University – Institute for National Strategic Studies China’s Strategic Force Modernization Dr. Phillip Saunders.
Essential Question: How did the arms race & space race escalate the Cold War between the United States & the Soviet Union? Warm Up Question:
 Nuclear Deterrence during the Cold War.  As a result of the Manhattan project American scientist learned to create nuclear fission explosion splitting.
Lesson – Disarmament.  Review goals of NPT treaty.  Compare different types of weapons.  Identify key treaties regulating nuclear arsenals.
Who’s Who In The Iraq War?. George W. Bush President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of US Military Forces Son of George H.W. Bush, who served.
Lesson 2 – Disarmament.  Review goals of NPT treaty.  Compare different types of weapons.  Identify key treaties regulating nuclear arsenals.  Describe.
Nuclear Treaties Dennis Silverman, U C Irvine Source:
 One person from a team up at once.  Touch only your team buzzer (you will lose 1 point)  Answer only if you are first to buzz in (buzzer will blink)
The Department of the Navy
How did Nixon’s Visit to China Change the Cold War? Mr. Ornstein Willow Canyon High School IB: History of the Americas.
U.S. Foreign Policy. What is “ foreign policy ” Goals that nations pursue in relation to other international actors –Goals Survival Territorial Integrity.
The Iraq War and the Bush Doctrine: Embarrassment to U.S. Foreign Policy or the Rational Choice?
April 5, The President’s Nuclear Security Agenda First articulated in Prague in April 2009 –Reduce nuclear dangers and pursue the long-term goal.
Future nuclear weapon policies James M. Acton
China and space security National Defense University, PLA, China National Defense University, PLA, China Zhong Jing.
Chapter Eighteen: Foreign Policy and National Security 1.
Organization Theory and Nuclear Proliferation History 5N: The Challenge of Nuclear Weapons.
Nuclear Arsenals. Table 1. Estimated global nuclear weapons inventories, Hans M. Kristensen, and Robert S. Norris Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Acid Rain Rainfall made sufficiently acidic by atmospheric pollution that it causes environmental harm.
The Nuclear Club Who’s in? Who’s out? And where do we go from here?
US Dependence on Strategic Nuclear Weapons Does shifting to “zero” make sense? Keith Hansen June 15, 2012.
Application of Air power. Promoting International Relations Preserving Peace When disaster strikes in whatever form - famine, flood or earthquake - speed.
Outline for 10/3: Weapons of Mass Destruction Considerations in acquiring WMDs US nuclear force policy ABM Treaty Various WMD regimes with a focus on the.
( Is Iran in violation of the NPT? Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? Feb. 27, 2006: Report by the IAEA Director General:
After Czechoslovakia Turning point for the Cold War Czech people never really trusted those who replaced Dubcek. USSR came in for criticism Romania Yugoslavia.
HOW DID THE RACE FOR ARMS AFFECT THE TENSIONS BETWEEN THE WEST AND THE SOVIET UNION? THE ARMS RACE.
First Nuclear Age, s Bipolarity – balance Deterrence – vulnerability Arms Control – Managing rivalry Rationality Second.
From 1945 to 1991, the USA & USSR used a variety of strategies to win the Cold War.
1980’s US HISTORY Arms Race USSR - War in Afghanistan Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) By Sarah Nichols.
The Bush Doctrine US Foreign and Domestic Policy Into.
NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN 2013 Steven Pifer Senior Fellow Director, Arms Control Initiative October 10, 2012.
The Cold War as Total (Virtual) War: Prospect of Nuclear War The Post-World War Two Condition for Almost Fifty Years.
Lesson 2 – Disarmament.  Review goals of NPT treaty.  Compare different types of weapons.  Identify key treaties regulating nuclear arsenals.  Describe.
Can North Korea Build More Nuclear Weapons?. A North Korean People’s Army naval unit tests a new type of anti-ship cruise missile in this undated photo.
Can the Thought & Logic of NFU Be Diffused to All Nuclear Weapon States? Can the Thought & Logic of NFU Be Diffused to All Nuclear Weapon States? Liu,
Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY Chapter Seventeen.
IS ARMS CONTROL THE ANSWER? What makes WMDs different? Chem, bio, & nuke vs. conventional weapons They seem.
IS ARMS CONTROL THE ANSWER? What makes WMDs different? Chem, bio, & nuke vs. conventional weapons They seem.
The Cold War Arms Race. During the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union became engaged in a nuclear arms race. They both spent billions and.
Republican Strategic Policy Détente and Nuclear Anxieties.
The Cold War from 1947 to 1989 Western and Eastern Blocs!! G. Kennan formulated Containment strategy the height of the Cold War 1970s-80s-
How is U.S. Foreign Policy Created?. What does it involve? Military, diplomacy, economic policy and intelligence gathering Constitutional Framework: President.
NATO “The leaders of NATO are creating a transatlantic monstrosity worthy of Mary Shelley. The Atlantic alliance is being buried. In its place, NATO, led.
Nuclear Weapons Part I.
Bipolarity Deterrence Arms Control Rationality Multipolarity
GOVT Module 16 Defense Policy.
International Security and Peace
Nuclear Proliferation and Arms Control (Part 4)
U.S. Nuclear Strategy toward China
“Existing world order is being redefined.” Henry Kissinger Jan 2015
Deterrence Deterrence is the effort by one actor to persuade another actor to refrain from some action by convincing the opponent that the costs will exceed.
Missile Defense and the SDI
Modern world today There are a lot of internal and international conflicts all over the world. Force methods are often used and have high effectiveness.
Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Development of Strategy
The Unsettling View from Moscow
NUCLEAR WEAPONS 101.
Shahryar Pasandideh PhD Student, George Washington University
Missile Madness.
Post-Apocalyptic Worlds
Presentation transcript:

Abolishing the U.S. Nuclear War Plan Presentation by Robert S. Norris and the NRDC Nuclear Program Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference Washington DC; June 18-19, 2001

Deterrence Historically deterrence has been a highly elastic concept. Nuclear weapons have been assigned the role of deterring a wide variety of potential threats. Recent doctrinal assertions claim that U.S. readiness to preempt or retaliate with nuclear weapons deter, nuclear, chemical and biological attacks.

Recent apologia I The current post-Cold war period is one of great political and military dynamism. Nuclear weapons deter WMD use by regional powers. New or modified types may be needed to target underground bunkers or perform other missions. Source: National Institute for Public Policy, Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control (January 2001)

Recent apologia II “I recently began to worry that... far too many people were beginning to believe that perhaps nuclear weapons no longer had value.” Central Deterrence –Russia (Capability One) Deter wider threats (Capability Two) Source: Paul Robinson, SNL White Paper, Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21 st Century (April 2001)

Targets and War Planning The act of targeting a nation-state or a group with nuclear weapons defines it as an enemy. This first step sets in motion activities to locate targets, assign weapons to destroy them, and calculate damage expectancies. The result is a permanent, in-place operational plan (e.g. SIOP) with extensive forces and demanding requirements.

Estimated Targets in the SIOP 2,260 targets in Russia 1,100 Nuclear weapons facilities 500 Conventional military 500 War Supporting Industry 160 Leadership and command and control China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea - 100s of targets.

Targeting Requirements Drive Nuclear Forces U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces on Alert Day-to-Day: 2,600 warheads Generated: 3,600 warheads All available: 6,200 warheads Total forces ( 7,200 warheads) ICBMs (2,000) SLBMs (3,450) Bombers (1,750) As of June 2001

PD-59 and NSDD-13 Endure Phoenix Study (1991) STRATCOM Briefing to Cheney, Powell (1992) Sun City (1993) Sun City Extended (1994) STRATCOM White Paper (1996) STRATCOM Warfighter Assessment (1996) Source: Hans M. Kristensen, The Matrix of Deterrence: U.S. Strategic Command Force Structure Studies (May 2001), The Nautilus Institute

Dominance of the SIOP If we were to come down below [START III levels] it would require us to change our strategic plan. President Bill Clinton, June 4, 2000 Our overall nuclear employment policy [states that] the United States forces must be capable of and be seen to be capable of holding at risk those critical assets and capabilities that a potential adversary most values. Walter Slocombe, Department of Defense, May 23, 2000 Our force structure needs to be robust, flexible and credible enough to meet the worst threats we can reasonably postulate. Our nation must always maintain the ability to convince potential aggressors to choose peace rather than war, restraint rather than escalation, and termination rather than conflict continuation. Adm. Richard Mies, US Strategic Command, May 23, 2000

The Need for Change Current START III proposals for smaller forces (between 2,500 and 1,500 warheads) that remain grounded in the basic SIOP assumptions are not fruitful avenues to pursue. The “needs” of the war plan now dictate the possibilities and limitations of arms control and force reductions. Force requirements must be decoupled from the current plans. For real change something more fundamental must occur.

“Today’s Russia is not our enemy” Clarify the U.S. relationship with Russia and reconcile declaratory and employment policy. A permanent, in-place war plan is a recipe for unceasing arms requirements.

A Paradigm Shift is Needed The U.S. should abolish the SIOP as it is currently understood, implemented and practiced. Restrict the roles and missions assigned to nuclear weapons. The sole reason for U.S. possession of nuclear weapons is to deter the use of nuclear weapons by another state. Reduce the geo-political value of nuclear weapons, by word and action.

Replace the SIOP with a Contingency Model The U.S. should not target nuclear weapons against any nuclear weapon state in peacetime. The current SIOP process should be replaced with a contingency war planning capability. A new paradigm will alleviate the need for large numbers of weapons. A new paradigm will defuse the negative political and psychological implications that go with targeting.

Openness and Honesty Abandon much of the secrecy that surrounds the SIOP. Demand explanations of the reasoning behind the war plan and be told would happen if it were executed. The nuclear war planning function carried out in Omaha should be brought to Washington to be done by a joint civilian-military staff with Congressional involvement.

Unilateral Deep Cuts Unilaterally reduce U.S. nuclear forces and challenge the Russians to do the same. Deep cuts on the road to the “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament” (to quote the U.S. NPT obligation) can only occur with revised presidential guidance.

Don’t Make Things Worse Reject the integration of national missile defense with offensive nuclear deterrent forces. MAD (“mutual assured destruction”) is neither a policy choice nor a doctrine. It is rather a condition, a situation that two nations find themselves in when they have nuclear weapons aimed at one another. Nuclear vulnerability cannot be overcome through missile defense sufficiently to alter the fundamental calculus of nuclear deterrence. The only effective way to alter MAD is to stop targeting one another.

False Promises Any plan by the Bush administration for lower numbers of strategic warheads that does not abandon counterforce as the ruling assumption— the core strategy of the war plan—is flawed and dangerous. Such proposals merely perpetuate Cold War practices at lower levels and are not a “clear and clean break.” Plans to abrogate the ABM Treaty and deploy national missile defense systems only makes matters worse.

A “clear and clean break” Something more fundamental must occur in order to create real change. As we have seen through our nuclear war simulation model, the place to begin is with dismantling the SIOP war planning process and apparatus, and the assumptions upon which it is built.