Op-Ed: A pointless anti-nuclear gesture

  • By Rich Lowry
  • Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:13am
  • Opinion

The Obama administration is entering its final months, but it’s never too late to further diminish U.S. influence and discomfit our allies.

President Barack Obama is considering adopting a policy of “no first use,” i.e., declaring that the United States would never use nuclear weapons except after a nuclear attack on itself or its allies. From Obama’s perspective, this change would have the dual advantage of being something he can legitimately do on his own and representing a radical departure in the country’s nuclear doctrine.

For 70 years, presidents of both parties have maintained a posture of nuclear ambiguity. We wanted enemies to have to contemplate the possibility of a U.S. nuclear response to acts of aggression. This added an extra element of uncertainty and risk to potential attacks on us or our friends, in the hopes of deterring them in the first place.

For the advocates of no first use, the very fact that ambiguity has been our policy for so long is a reason to abandon it. They urge that we get beyond “Cold War thinking,” a favorite line of President Obama’s as well. The end of the Cold War indeed changed the strategic environment, but it didn’t make nuclear weapons obsolete, or render age-old concepts like deterrence inoperative, or eliminate international conflict.

The paradox of nukes is that they are weapons of cataclysmic destructive force at the same time that they have proven to be a guarantee of peace. As the strategist Bernard Brodie wrote at the dawn of the nuclear age: “Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them.” It is thanks in part to the advent of nuclear weapons that we have averted the total wars between great powers that made the first half of the 20th century a vast killing field.

Declaring no first use would kick away an element of our nuclear deterrent. Yes, we no longer have to worry about deterring a massive Soviet army facing west. But Vladimir Putin has already changed the borders of Europe through force, and there’s no reason to think he’s necessarily done. A RAND Corporation study says that Russian forces could reach the capitals of the Baltic States in less than 60 hours.

Why would we make Putin’s calculation any easier in considering such a move, or ease the minds of other potential aggressors like China and North Korea? We might never use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack, no matter how brazen. Obviously the risks in resorting to nuclear weapons would be mind-boggling, but taking the possibility off the table serves no purpose. If we are going to have nuclear weapons, we should take advantage of their deterrent effect.

Relying entirely on conventional forces for deterrence would require more military spending and more forward-deployed assets by us and our allies. Of course, the analysts and activists who argue for no first use tend to be the same ones who think we spend too much on defense. One of these things does not go along with the other.

Our allies are freaked out about the prospect of no first use. They have long relied on our nuclear umbrella, and if it is being pulled back, countries like South Korea and Japan will need to reconsider their decisions to forswear nuclear weapons. This is why no first use would contradict President Obama’s opposition to nuclear proliferation, and make Global Zero — the disarmament movement’s goal of a world free of nuclear weapons — even more of a pipe dream.

In short, there is nothing to recommend no first use unless you are a lame-duck president heedless of strategic reality and looking to make a gesture of anti-nuclear righteousness. No first use would make the world, at the margins, a more dangerous place — and be a perfect parting shot for President Obama.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

More in Opinion

Dick Maitland, a foley artist, works on the 46th season of “Sesame Street” at Kaufman Astoria Studios in New York, Dec. 15, 2025. (Ariana McLaughlin/The New York Times)
Opinion: Trump’s embarrassing immaturity Republicans won’t acknowledge

Sullivan should be embarrassed by the ignorance and immaturity the president is putting on display for the world to see.

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Commissioner Deena Bishop and Gov. Mike Dunleavy discuss his veto of an education bill during a press conference March 15, 2024, at the Alaska State Capitol. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Strong policy, proven results

Why policy and funding go hand in hand.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski speaks on a range of subjects during an interview with the Juneau Empire in May 2019. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The Jones Act — crass protectionism, but for whom?

Alaska is dependent on the few U.S.-built ships carrying supplies from Washington state to Alaska.

Cook Inlet can be seen at low tide from North Kenai Beach on June 15, 2022, in Kenai, Alaska. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Solving the Cook Inlet gas crisis

While importing LNG is necessary in the short term, the Kenai Peninsula is in dire need of a stable long-term solution.

Sockeye salmon caught in a set gillnet are dragged up onto the beach at a test site for selective harvest setnet gear in Kenai, Alaska, on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Creating opportunities with better fishery management

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

The ranked choice outcome for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race is shown during an Alaska Public Media broadcast on Nov. 24, 2022. (Alaska Division of Elections)
Opinion: Alaska should keep ranked choice voting, but let’s make it easier

RCV has given Alaskans a better way to express their preferences.

The Alaska State Capitol on March 1. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Keep Alaska open for business

Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that laws passed at the ballot box work effectively on the ground.

Brooke Walters. (Courtesy photo)
Opinion: A student’s letter to the governor

Our education funding is falling short by exuberant amounts.

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, speaks in support of debating an omnibus education bill in the Alaska House Chambers on Monday, Feb. 19, 2024. in Juneau, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Compromise, not games

Rep. Justin Ruffridge reports back from Juneau.

Most Read