By Kyle Balzer
Tuesday,
March 12, 2024
Russia’s full-scale
invasion of Ukraine has laid bare several uncomfortable realities about nuclear
weapons. By slamming the door shut on the post-Cold War holiday from history,
the war has unquestionably ushered in a new era of great-power nuclear
competition. Gone are the more tranquil days when Russia was considered a
reliable arms-control partner, and China just a rudimentary nuclear power.
Moscow now exhibits no inhibitions about rattling every nuclear saber at its
disposal, and Beijing has undertaken a rapid nuclear expansion to advance its
revisionist agenda in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.
But
the Russo–Ukrainian War has also revealed another unpleasant reality closer to
home: America’s nuclear rhetoric is woefully inadequate for a new era of
great-power competition. U.S. leaders must redress the way they talk about
nuclear war — or risk losing the public support required to compete in the
nuclear shadow.
Take,
for example, Donald J. Trump’s recent suggestion at a campaign rally that he might expose
America’s European allies to Russian predations. The former president’s remark
— which follows the recent revelation that Trump believes Americans risk nuclear
war if they don’t reelect him — has provoked an open debate in Germany about the merits of an
all-European nuclear arsenal. At a time when Washington would prefer
Europe to focus on conventional capabilities, the allies are, instead,
speculating about an independent nuclear deterrent to hedge against Trump 2.0.
Notwithstanding
today’s hyper-partisan politics, however, America’s loose rhetoric is
unquestionably a bipartisan affair. Consider President Biden’s invocations
of World War III in response to Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling earlier in the
Ukraine war. When Ukraine was gearing up for its 2022 counteroffensive, which
would throw Russian lines into disarray, the White House refused to arm Kyiv
with long-range weapons for fear of igniting an escalatory spiral. The nuclear
specter undoubtedly shaped the Biden administration’s risk-aversion — with the
president warning at the time, “We have not faced the prospect
of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Unsurprisingly,
U.S. public opinion mirrors Biden’s and Trump’s shared nuclear anxiety. As
Russia reinforced its lines in the final months of 2022, the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Foundation and Institute’s annual defense survey recorded a rising
fear of nuclear escalation among Americans. Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed
expressed concern about the prospect of nuclear war in the next five years. The
Reagan Institute’s 2023 poll recorded that 74 percent were worried about
the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack.
More
concerning, however, is public ambivalence about U.S. nuclear policy. According
to a joint Chicago Council–Carnegie Corporation survey conducted in 2023, less than half of the
respondents (47 percent) believed that nuclear weapons made them safer. Nearly
the same share of respondents (43 percent) either believed nuclear weapons
didn’t improve their safety or said they lacked the knowledge to register an
informed opinion. What’s more, those with little or no memory of the Cold War
were more likely to doubt that nuclear weapons made a difference. A silver
lining, though, is that the majority of respondents expressed an interest in learning
more about the subject.
The
Biden administration — or its prospective successor — should take this public
interest as an opportunity to educate a generation of Americans who came of age
when nuclear weapons were an afterthought. This generation, like their
forerunners who prevailed in the Cold War, will be asked to support the
long-term sustainment and possible expansion of the nuclear arsenal. It is this
generation, then, which Washington must engage to explain why the nation
invests in weapons with such awesome power. And it is this generation whose
support will be required for the country to run the calculated risks inherent
in great-power competition.
Washington
must restore the cultural relevance of nuclear deterrence. Americans lack a
tragic sensibility that was more familiar to the generations that defeated
fascism and then confronted Soviet communism. In the fraught period ahead, the
nation might be tested in crises analogous to those of the early Cold War. It
is well past time for a presidential address that explains the stakes at hand,
and the irreplaceable role of nuclear deterrence in peacefully advancing
American interests.
But
the words in such an address must be chosen carefully. Public discourse should
avoid doom-laden scenarios and, instead, focus on the peaceful role
played by the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the bedrock of
the U.S. defense posture, which preserves an international environment
favorable to the American way of life. Washington would do well to avoid
hysterics and instead emphasize how nuclear weapons underwrite the nation’s
security. Otherwise, it will jeopardize the public’s support for American
nuclear policy in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment