For the handful of nations armed with nuclear weapons, the circumstances under which they’d be used are always an important consideration. This is particularly true of the United States, which has one of the world’s largest arsenals, and is the only nation that has used nuclear arms offensively during a war.
Often debated, but as yet never confirmed, is the possibility of “no first use,” a promise to the world that the US won’t attack anybody with nuclear arms. At present, China is the only nuclear power with a no first use policy, while India has a somewhat more limited promise not to nuke non-nuclear states. The US has so far refused calls to take such a position.
President Biden is in the process of debating a new nuclear posture like finally making a “no first use” pledge. The Obama Administration was reportedly close to such a move, but ultimately changed its mind.
The upshot would be that nuclear first strikes are morally unconscionable, and that the “no first use” policy is really a bare minimum of decency, even if it is a level of decency above and beyond not having actively started a nuclear holocaust yet.
The debate is likely to be a high-profile one, as despite the straightforward ethical decision there are some outspoken proponents who favor the US remaining ambiguous on who it will nuke, and when.
Biden is believed to be at least considering “no first use,” and Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) is positioning himself as the primary opponent, claiming US allies are “very, very upset” with the prospect of changing posture.
Sen. Risch, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that such a pledge would give comfort to the enemy, adding that “there are scenarios where you can imagine a first strike.”
Advocates say a proper policy change would reduce the chances of getting into a civilization-ending nuclear war with China or Russia by reducing the risk that either of them comes to the mistaken belief that the US is about to nuke them. Throughout the Cold War, such confusion happened, and nearly resulted in devastating exchanges.
I can’t think of anyone sane enough that would trust us if we promise “no first use of nukes.” Can you?
Sophocles: “Trust dies but mistrust blossoms.”
Exactly! The US is “the exceptional nation”. All the sanctimonious scolding on WMD only applies to “the other. And any “commitment”
can be easily mooted by one of the legion John Hu epigones.
Every fresh minted POTUS has to go through an intensive spiritual exercise preparing him to give the order.
My thoughts exactly. Our promises are a joke.
True, no one would trust US promises on that.
On the other hand, such promises would cost the US absolutely nothing whatsoever — whether they were kept or not.
Governments, like other organized crime syndicates, show two faces.
One is the pseudo-friendly “nice thing ya got here — be a shame if anything happened to it” face of the protection racketeer, trying to pass themselves off as really being benefactors, not just thugs.
The other is the “I’m asking you where the hell the money is as I pistol whip you” face of the protection racketeer proving that the previous approach was actually the BS it always was.
Mere possession of nukes beyond a tiny deterrent quantity amounts to the “nice country ya got there” face. Actual first use would amount to the “pistol whipping you” face. What good does showing a face in between those two faces do the racketeer?
You summarized the entire US’ understanding of diplomacy. You especially got me with, “nice country ya got there.” To make sure nothing is missing, I might want to add, “it would be a shame if we don’t whack your ‘dictator.'”
Israel will be the first to use nukes most likely… possibly against the US. Only of course if they can blame someone else.
Simply put the americans are not to be trusted in any shape or form .
Before one of our missiles hits its target (if not shot down), missiles would be headed our way. There are supposedly intelligent men (and women) who actually believe we would survive a nuclear war, because we have more bombs than they do (perhaps).
I agree. They are not intelligent. They are simply evil. Otherwise, how can someone be so enthusiastic about killing millions of people?
Furthermore, it is disheartening to see so many women involved in the MIC. That’s not because I think less of women, but because I think more of them! Women can be mothers, which elevates them to a much higher level as a human being than men. They can understand that people are simply the children of other mothers much better than men. You normally expect sword (nuclear weapon) rattling from idiotic testosterone oozing deranged men. But hey, it may just be because I am an old man. I am not here to offend anyone.
The author’s statement below is at the heart of this discussion and leads to the sociological question that follows it
“… the “no first use” policy is really a bare minimum of decency…”
What kind of people devise terrorist weapons of mass destruction aimed at cities occupied by millions of innocent people? Whoever they may be, they are definitely proven as not able to consider and implement policies that avert mass destruction by capitalist induced environmental collapse.
Not to worry. Their best psychologists are on it. Even Jimmy Carter acknowledged after the training, he was prepared to do it. It is the Nietzschean abyss, and the “last man” will be a blinking fool. Zarathustra’s vision was of a US President. Hitler was only the Precursor.
Sounds like a lie to me. Only a psychopath madman would start a nuclear war and the USA leadership is infested with them.
Trump would NEVER have considered a 1st use of nuclear bombs. I doubt he would have even considered it — period! One of the reasons Pelosi wanted Trump out of office was she didn’t trust him and “feared” he would use nuclear weapons on a whim. Now there is Biden actually considering being using them “on a whim” and she says NOTHING. Will her and the Left’s hypocrisy ever end? I doubt it.