Alex WellersteinVerified account

Uuh, how about nukes as a deterrent to conventional attack?

We have conventional means of deterring conventional attacks. If we were a militarily-weak state — sure, maybe. But we aren't.

(To put it another, simpler way: Whose behavior do you think would be changed if we had a NFU policy? Russia? China? North Korea? I doubt they'd act any differently, personally.)

So is there any situation, for any country, where a NFU policy is worth anything, or do you think it's worthless for all countries? If not always useless, why for the US, but not others?

Well, let's look at China. China had (maybe still has?) a NFU policy. They developed a force structure to match it (a small, hardened arsenal). Does that guarantee NFU in reality? Of course not. Does it reinforce a stated posture? Sure.

If the question is, "why is the US different?" the answer is: because the US is the only power in the world with a huge nuclear arsenal AND a huge conventional arsenal AND is feverishly working on BMD.

Which spooks countries like Russia and China, and spurs them to coming up with their own ways of "rebalancing" the equation (whether that means hypersonics or goofy long range nuclear-powered cruise missiles or whatever).

Now would a NFU reassure those countries that we are not trying to get into some position where we could wipe out their nuclear arsenals preemptively if we thought we wanted to or had to? I doubt it, not unless it was coupled with other policy changes.

Am not quite sure why/if this matters, but #NFU debate different this time since it’s motivated by self-restraint (executive restraint) not confidence building measures. I think that needs to shape understandings of what, if any, international effect it might have.

The issue then isn’t NFU, it’s sole-authority and we should address that directly than through a back door imho

(is this how the kids agree with people with emojis these days?)

I take your point Alex. But there is another reason for supporting NFU - if the US had such a declaratory policy it would help move the needle and policy toward things like “sole purpose” of nukes and thus help reduce Arsenals and move toward disarmament. All good things

Would it, though? I admit I am unsure. Here's a hypothetical: if Obama had declared a NFU policy for the USA, would we be in any less of a pickle today? Maybe I am pessimistic but I suspect not.