The main problem with a US pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons is simple: none of our adversaries would believe it.https://twitter.com/Leone_EXM/status/1090654031129788421 …
Show this thread
-
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.
-
But anyway. I am not trying to make an argument for a NFU, or even against it. I can see arguments in favor and against it. I just think it occupies too much of our nuclear policy headspace, since the big, driving issues are separate from this kind of declaratory posture.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.