-
Introduction. Why Nuclear Weapons Still Matter
- University of Pennsylvania Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
I n t r o d u c t i o n Why Nuclear Weapons Still Matter We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal. —George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, 2007 As long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear forces, including deployed and stockpiled nuclear weapons, highly capable nuclear delivery systems and command and control capabilities, and the physical infrastructure and the expert personnel needed to sustain them. —U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, 2010 Isn’t Nuclear War Yesterday’s Problem? The Soviet flag was lowered over the Kremlin for the last time on Christmas Day 1991. That evening, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed the American people and assured them that the long nuclear nightmare of the Cold War had finally come to an end. ‘‘For over 40 years,’’ Bush said, ‘‘the United States led the West in the struggle against communism and the threat it posed to our most precious values. This struggle shaped the lives of all Americans. It forced all nations to live under the specter of nuclear destruction.’’ That confrontation, the president declared, ‘‘is now over.’’1 And so it was. For a brief period at the close of the twentieth century, it seemed as if the nuclear anxieties of the Cold War could finally be put 2 Introduction aside. Both the United States and the new Russian Federation began to dismantle their nuclear weapons, target them away from each other, and to corral and secure what was left of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal . Nuclear war receded into the recent past as yesterday’s worry, no longer relevant in a world released from the constant tension of the longstanding Soviet-American nuclear confrontation. Prominent Cold Warriors in the United States and Europe, and even some in Russia, have since advocated deep reductions in nuclear arms. Many have supported the goal of reaching ‘‘global zero,’’ the complete eradication of nuclear weapons. In 2008, a bipartisan group that included former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry (sometimes collectively called the ‘‘Gang of Four’’) issued a now-famous open letter in which they called for a world free of nuclear weapons.2 For a time, this message of nuclear abolition resonated widely and attracted considerable attention among both policy elites and ordinary citizens, and a collection of senior officials and top military commanders from several countries soon joined these statesmen in rejecting the foundations of the strategic doctrines they helped to create. In 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama formally committed the United States to the objective of the complete eradication of nuclear arms in a speech in Prague, a goal he reaffirmed in an official review of U.S. nuclear policies in 2010. But the moment passed quickly. In May 2011, Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn hosted a meeting in London later described by former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans as ‘‘featuring a worldwide cast of some 30 former foreign and defense ministers, generals, and ambassadors who share their concern and commitment’’ to nuclear disarmament. None of these officials, however, were still in their former positions of power. ‘‘Our average age was over 65,’’ Evans noted ruefully, and the limits of their effectiveness were neatly described at the conference by former British Defense Minister Des Browne: ‘‘People who used to be something really want to tackle this issue. The trouble is that those who are something don’t.’’3 As President Obama began his second term in office, his administration retained and reaffirmed previous Cold War concepts, strategies and forces. Today, more than 20,000 nuclear weapons remain around the world, with some 5,000 of those operational and ready for war, and many arms control [18.232.88.17] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 19:55 GMT) Introduction 3 advocates are concerned that the window for further reductions, at least for some time to come, has closed.4 Despite this slowing momentum, the U.S. and its allies deserve credit for at least trying to reduce their dependence on nuclear arms. (Great Britain has seriously considered the question of whether it needs a nuclear deterrent at all.)5 Other nations, however, are trying to reach their own nuclear...