Assume the Posture

"Against Sloth" posts a comment wondering about reaction to the New York Times editorial recently on nuclear weapons.

Here's a link to the editorial. The Times says the posture review matters, which I think is true if you're trying to change doctrine. Not so much if you're just trying to continue the past.

The Times says that we should limit the purpose of nuclear weapons to deterring a nuclear attack on us or our allies. Most of the arguments on the side of more uses for nuclear weapons ignore the dangers of accident and escalation. Killing lots of civilians - which nuclear weapons tend to do no matter how carefully you try to use them - tends to prompt a desire for revenge. I think the Times is right and maybe doesn't go far enough.

The Times says that we should indicate a willingness to cut the number of weapons actively deployed to 1,000 (if the Russians will go down to 1,000, too). Strategically, there's not much difference between 2,200 (where we are) and 1,000. So it makes sense. I think we can go deeper, but that's me.

The Times says we should not build any new weapons or even suggest that we might. Since I think the difficulties with nuclear weapons are inherent (they're big and they spread radiation), I don't think it makes sense to tinker with variations of that same weapon.

The Times says we should take the weapons off hair-trigger alert now that the Cold War is over. This is too obviously sensible to merit comment.

Finally, they say that getting the posture review right is essential to progress on the NPT, getting ratification of a new START treaty, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban, and negotiating with North Korea. I think the posture review only really has significance when you're changing direction. Even then, if the posture review sounds like the same old posture but you signal in other ways that you're changing course, the posture review probably wouldn't be controlling. So I think it's a little less essential than the Times does. But it matters.

One side note. The fact that the Review is delayed is good news for people who want change in nuclear weapons policy. And it follows a pattern. Obama is all about patiently letting people make mistakes. He gives them responsibility and then let's them do their best. He doesn't command the outcome from the beginning, that's the way a king acts (or a Decider) not a community organizer. But he will make you do it again if you get it wrong. 

Obama is all about responsibility. I will be surprised if the final posture review doesn't look very much like what he wanted to begin with.