Here is an editorial I came across earlier this week about deterrence. Penned by Russ Wellen for Huffintgon Post, the piece surveys some arguments and counterarguments about the effectiveness of deterrence. It is important to think about deterrence in the wake of the START news from last week. Though many have bought the party line that START II is a step toward global nuclear disarmament, there is a giant leap between a deterrence world and a nuclear free world.
For more on deterrence, check out this article written last year by Michael Gerson. Gerson concludes:
In his 5 April 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama stated that the United States intends to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.” This reduction, if achieved, does not signify the beginning of unilateral nuclear disarmament. The President was careful to note that nuclear deterrence would be necessary as long as other nations possess nuclear weapons, and that the goal of a nuclear-free world “will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime.”
A reduction in the role that nuclear weapons play in America’s national security strategy requires a corresponding increase in conventional capabilities. Whereas nuclear weapons dominated the research and debate on deterrence in the twentieth century, conventional weapons will likely occupy a significant portion of the discourse in the new century.
Let’s try to keep START II in perspective as, in the lead up to next month’s NPT review conference, we will undoubtedly be the victims of a ridiculous rhetorical assault proclaiming that the U.S. has lived up to its obligation under NPT Article VI “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” If only it were true.
