China’s nuclear expansion and talks of war with Taiwan were revealed.
Then Russia appeared — signs that it may be planning to invade Ukraine.
Major shifts in U.S. nuke weapons policy now seem less likely. While Biden may insist upon certain adjustments, momentum towards a historic departure of the Trump administration’s policies appears to be stalled.
When the Biden administration’s so-called nuclear position review is complete, the outlook will be clearer. This internal review examines the number, types, and purposes of nuclear weapons as well as the policies that could govern their use. The results could be released as soon as January.
Based on White House calculations, the biggest unknown is how strongly Biden will weigh-in on these questions. Biden spoke of new directions for nuclear policy during his time as vice president. However, Republicans would be able to use their political power to portray this change as a gift for nuclear adversaries if they have greater concerns about China or Russia.
Biden became more focused on Russia after President Vladimir Putin sent approximately 100,000 troops to Ukraine’s border in recent weeks and demanded U.S. security assurances. Biden and Putin spoke by telephone on Thursday about Ukraine. Senior American and Russian officials will follow up in Geneva on January 9-10 for more detailed discussions.
Tom Z. Collina is the policy director of Ploughshares Fund and a proponent for nuclear disarmament. He says that while the China-Russia problems can complicate Biden’s nuclear review, it should not stop him taking action to reduce nuclear dangers.
Collina stated that “We don’t want a new nuclear arms war with either nation” and that diplomacy is the best way to stop it. We must not forget the main lesson from the Cold War with Russia: the only way to win an arm race is to not run.
In March, Biden stated that Russia and China had altered “the distribution of power around the world” in an interim national security guidance.
The guidance stated that both Beijing and Moscow had invested heavily in efforts to counter U.S. strength and prevent us from protecting our interests and allies worldwide. Biden promised to take countermeasures to strengthen the United States, restore its alliances abroad, and raise the level of diplomacy. The mention of nuclear weapons was limited.
The guidance stated that “We will take steps in order to reduce the importance of nuclear weapons within our national security strategy”, but did not provide details. It also stated that the U.S. would ensure a safe and reliable nuclear force and seek arms control opportunities.
Since then, concerns about Russia and China have only grown. Private satellite imagery showed that China was creating large numbers of underground silos for its nuclear missiles. A Pentagon report in November stated that China could quadruple its nuclear stockpile by 2030.
Robert Soofer, who led the 2018 nuclear review and was Pentagon’s top nuclear policy officer during Trump’s administration, said, “Because China has done it, it has really changed this review.”
“Rather than being a review that looks at reducing nuclear weapons’ role and eliminating one leg of the Triad, they have been forced to keep the course and decide how to tweak it.
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s policy chief said that the outlook for U.S. nuke policy was influenced not only by China’s nuclear ambitions, but also by “real anxiety” among U.S. allies across Europe about Russian defense and nuclear policies.
Kahl stated June 23 that Russia was the wolf closest in the shed when it comes to the nuclear issue. China is close behind, however, and that they want to increase their nuclear arsenal both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, at a nuclear policy conference sponsored the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Kahl didn’t give an indication of the outcome of the policy review, but he stated that it was intended to fit within a larger defense strategy, which will also be published in 2022.
Although the Pentagon has not made public details about the nuclear review, the administration appears to be likely to maintain the current contours of nuclear force. This includes the traditional “triad”, which consists of land-, sea-, and air-based weapons. Critics call this overkill. The review could also include a $1 trillion plus modernization of the force, as was done by Trump’s Obama administration.
It is unclear if Biden will allow any significant changes to what is known as “declaratory policies,” which outlines the purpose of nuclear arms and the circumstances in which they may be used.
Biden was vice president of the Obama administration. In 2010, the Obama administration stated that it would only consider nuclear weapons being used in “extreme circumstances” to protect the vital interests of the United States and its allies.
Eight years later, Trump’s administration reaffirmed the Obama policy, but became more specific. “Extreme circumstances may include significant non-nuclear strategy attacks. Notable non-nuclear strategic threats include attacks on the U.S., allies, or partner civil population or infrastructure and on U.S. and allied nuclear forces command and control or attack assessment capabilities.
Many believed that Biden would be a different president, following his advice to pledge “no first uses”. In a January 2017 speech, he stated that “Given our current non-nuclear capabilities, and the nature today’s threats, I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which the United States would need to use nuclear weapons for the first time.”
Some argue that Russia and China have made “today’s threats” less likely this year, keeping Biden cautious.
