"Sounds like sounding the soil": how the US can change its nuclear policy

In November, the US administration intends to consider the possibility of changing the country's nuclear policy. According to The Washington Post, citing knowledgeable sources, it is planned to determine at a series of closed meetings whether it is worth changing the principle of using the American nuclear arsenal, defining its "sole purpose" as deterrence or response to aggression.

“On the agenda of the White House meetings on nuclear policy this month, they are not discussing the promise“ not to use (nuclear weapons. -

) first, ”but a statement about the“ sole purpose ”(the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States. -

). Declaring a "single target", depending on the wording of the statement, will not necessarily limit the ability of the United States to launch nuclear strikes, "an unnamed senior official was quoted as saying.

It is also noted that the upcoming consultations on this topic within the framework of the US National Security Council will become part of the strategy of the administration of President Joe Biden to develop a new policy on nuclear weapons. Within their framework, they will also touch upon such an issue as the expediency of the program for the modernization of the nuclear arsenal and its expansion, which was approved by the 45th head of the United States, Donald Trump.

The statement on the intention to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the US national security strategy was noted in the "Interim Strategic Guidelines on National Security", promulgated by the White House in early March.

In addition, Biden himself in 2017, while still being vice president, noted that "it is difficult to imagine a plausible scenario in which the United States would be the first to use nuclear weapons."

During his 2020 presidential campaign, he reiterated this thesis, calling deterrence and retaliation "the only goal of the US nuclear arsenal" and pledging to make that position a reality.

• The White house

• © REUTERS / Al Drago

At the same time, his predecessor, the Democrat Barack Obama, who also announced his intention to reduce nuclear weapons, was never able to fulfill his promises to establish a "single target" for the country's nuclear forces.

His nuclear strategy allowed the use of appropriate weapons in "the most extreme cases" and lacked a clear statement about not being used first.

Confirm leadership

However, the Democrats do not give up hope of revising the circumstances for the use of nuclear weapons, noting that in this way the United States will set an example for other countries.

In particular, Congressman Adam Smith and Senator Elizabeth Warren in April once again submitted for consideration a bill banning a preemptive nuclear strike.

Their similar initiative, presented in 2019, has not met with approval.

“Legislating the idea that nuclear deterrence is the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal strengthens US national security and reaffirms our leadership in nuclear nonproliferation,” Smith said.

In turn, Warren added that Washington's threats to use nuclear weapons first make the United States less secure, since they increase the chances of miscalculation or accident.

“There are no winners in a nuclear war,” she said.

However, their arguments are not considered valid by the GOP.

For example, senior Republican of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jim Risch, in a recent column for Defense News, stated that both refusing a preemptive strike and setting a "single target" for a nuclear arsenal essentially mean the same thing and pose a threat to security as themselves The United States and its allies.

According to him, even Barack Obama refused to reconsider the purpose of the arsenal, although initially he was also quite determined.

“To say that the US will never be the first to use nuclear weapons is the worst possible measure.

Such a policy will scare away our friends, untie the hands of our opponents and harm the very goals of (nuclear -

) non-proliferation, which it is allegedly promoting, "Risch emphasized.

• Senate Senate Foreign Relations Senior Republican Jim Rich

• © REUTERS / Evelyn Hockstein

In his opinion, legitimizing the "single goal" promoted by the Biden administration would undermine the faith of American allies in Washington's commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter on collective defense and in the US intention to ensure transatlantic security and the security of northeast Asia.

Thus, the senator noted, the Biden administration will collapse the "nuclear umbrella", which not only protects the US partners, but also prevents the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Allies in a panic

The lack of enthusiasm for the prospect of Washington revising its nuclear strategy was also stated by US allies. In particular, British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, in a comment to the American Enterprise Institute, noted that London "does not support the change in strategy" of the United States. Moreover, Britain itself is determined to expand its nuclear potential, which is spelled out in the updated defense and foreign policy strategy published in March. According to the document, the British authorities intend to raise the ceiling value for the size of the arsenal to 260 warheads.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer also spoke about the need to use nuclear weapons to contain Russia. In her opinion, in this way, it is necessary to make it clear to Moscow that the North Atlantic Alliance "is ready to use such means in order to frighten it in advance, and so that no one would think about attacking NATO partners." Her statement caused a wave of criticism not only in Russia, but also in Germany. So, the head of the faction of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which won the elections to the Bundestag, Rolf Mutzenich called the minister's words "irresponsible."

However, the Kramp-Karrenbauer view is shared by some of the United States' allies.

Thus, the Financial Times, citing sources, reported that in addition to Great Britain and Germany, France, Australia and Japan are in favor of the invariability of Washington's current nuclear policy.

According to the FT, the United States received a negative reaction from partners on its plans by sending them questionnaires asking about their attitude to the possibility of revising nuclear policy.

The allies are confident that the move "could undermine the containment strategy targeted at Russia and China."

"This will be a huge gift for China and Russia," a European official said speaking to the publication, speaking on condition of anonymity.

At the same time, as reported in the material, some American allies are concerned that their fears are most likely not being taken into account by the ruling elite of the United States.

And their concerns are fueled by recent moves by Washington to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and create the AUKUS defense partnership, which have not been agreed with them.

In this regard, a senior FT source in Congress noted that the allies were already panicking about the new plans of the White House.

“Adopting a declarative 'single target' nuclear policy would be a devastating blow to US allies and partners.

Such a decision will undermine our credibility, ”the FT source is sure.

• Flags of Russia and China

• © REUTERS / Jason Lee

In Russia, the current formulation of the United States on the terms in which they reserve the right to use nuclear weapons is considered vague.

As Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said at the Fort Ross Dialogue forum, Moscow is concerned that Washington is using rather vague formulations in this matter.

“We are concerned by the fact that in recent years the United States has deliberately added uncertainty to the question of under what circumstances it is possible to use nuclear weapons.

We want more clarity here, ”the diplomat said.

According to him, Russia expects the United States to make efforts to eliminate this uncertainty, and is ready to take reciprocal steps.

“We would still like to see any steps that could add specifics ... so that the nuclear threshold is higher than today.

It would be mutual, ”Ryabkov noted.

Changing the balance of power

Experts believe that it is not by chance that the topic of nuclear weapons has become topical again in the White House (albeit at the level of sources so far).

According to analysts, this is due to the adjustment of the strategic balance in the world.

As Vladimir Batyuk, head of the Center for Military-Political Studies of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted in an interview with RT, the United States is no longer in the position it was in during the Cold War, when it had a quantitative and qualitative advantage in weapons over the USSR and even more so China.

“Now the situation has changed, and on a number of aspects of the nuclear race, the Russians and the Chinese have taken the lead.

For example, Moscow has intercontinental ballistic missiles with a mobile launch, it can use hypersonic weapons that cannot be intercepted by existing missile defense systems, and is also developing the Poseidon ocean-going multipurpose system that terrifies the United States and the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, ”Batyuk said. ...

All this, he believes, makes the Americans think about revising their nuclear strategy, since, for example, a preemptive strike can be developed only in conditions of nuclear superiority, even if not absolute.

At the same time, the expert believes, in the White House, despite all the independence of the authorities from the opinions of its allies, they cannot suddenly announce a change in their position on the use of a nuclear arsenal.

“Therefore, such publications in the media are very similar to probing the soil regarding the reaction of both their politicians and military, and strategic partners.

Moreover, Biden's rating is in the process of decreasing and the Democrats do not have a solid majority over the Republicans, ”Batyuk said.

As, in turn, said Vadim Kozyulin, head of the Center for Global Studies and International Relations of the IAMP at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, the Biden administration's view of the problem of US nuclear development is fundamentally different from the way it was seen in the Trump administration.

The analyst recalled that Trump's nuclear modernization program was also very costly.

“The US nuclear industry has not been up to par for a long time.

To reanimate and restart it, technologies and funds are needed, which is quite difficult and expensive.

In addition, the weapons that the United States already have is enough to contain it.

In a word, there is no military or strategic point in this, ”Kozyulin explained in a conversation with RT.

• Flags of EU countries

• Reuters

• © Ronald Wittek

However, he stressed, the United States will still try to enlist the support of its allies in this matter in order to maintain both the authority, somewhat undermined in the light of recent events, and the balance of power.

“After all, there are countries like Japan and South Korea that are very dependent on the American nuclear umbrella.

If they feel that there is some insecurity in it, they can start creating their own nuclear weapons, and this is not in the interests of either the United States, or Russia or China, "the expert said.

In Europe, Vladimir Batyuk noted, they are not ready for Washington to weaken itself by revising the circumstances of using its nuclear arsenal.

After all, then they will either have to build up their military potential themselves, or reconsider their relations with Russia and China.

“This is a very difficult challenge for them - hence the ambiguous reaction of the American allies.

By analogy, something similar happened in the 1960s, when the Americans switched from a strategy of massive retaliation to a strategy of flexible response.

Then, too, not everyone was happy with this, especially in Europe, ”the analyst concluded.