A quiet revolution: nuclear strategy for the 21st century

Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2002 by James J. Wirtz, James A. Russell

There is a quiet revolution underway in U.S. nuclear strategy. It is overshadowed by the global war on terrorism, questions over homeland security, and chaos in the international order. It is revolutionary because it reflects many changes in threats, capabilities, and doctrine that have preoccupied nuclear planners since the 1950s. It also highlights the way the Armed Forces prepare for future conflicts.

The vision found in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is part of a wider endeavor to develop new policies. (1) It embraces the concepts of assurance, dissuasion, deterrence, defense, and denial articulated in the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2001. Both reviews set priorities for formulating defense and foreign policy, developing a strategic relationship with Russia, and countering proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons and lung-range ballistic missiles.

New Threats, New Opportunities

Nuclear policy reflects strategic, political, and technological trends that emerged over the last decade. "File collapse of the Soviet Union presented an opportunity to foster a new strategic relationship. The United States concluded that massive nuclear arsenals, which had produced the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD), arms control agreements, and many views of the Cold War, were no longer relevant. Moreover, both countries would benefit by reducing defense budgets. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, supporters of George Bush noted that the arms control regime prevented adjustments to meet fiscal realities and new threats. Arms control was the source of acrimony; the time had come to stop regarding Russia as an enemy and to develop a more cooperative approach to managing strategic relations.

Though many observers marveled at the effectiveness of precision-guided air strikes in the Persian Gulf War, advances in technology did not stop. The information revolution of the 1990s continued to transform military capabilities. Sometimes called the revolution in military affairs, it involved integrating surveillance and reconnaissance sensors, information processing, tactical and operational communications, and precision-guided munitions. Today, commanders can use data from myriad sensors--generically known as the global command and control system--to acquire a picture of the battlespace in real time, a capability that did not exist ten years ago. The Pentagon wants to use advances in command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C41) to integrate nuclear and conventional forces so they can be responsive on short notice.

Concern has grown over the proliferation of NBC weapons and related delivery systems. The conflict between Iran and Iraq and the Gulf War highlighted the danger posed by long-range missiles and hinted at this new threat. A national intelligence estimate issued in 1995, Emerging Missile Threats to North America during the Next Fifteen Years, posed relatively benign threats. It was discredited by the Rumsfeld Commission Report and the North Korean test of the Taepo-Dong missile in 1998. The sarin attack in the Tokyo subway in 1995, Indian and Pakistani tests of nuclear weapons in 1998, the end of U.N. inspections in Iraq, and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have turned weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into a salient danger, In a report to Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency identified nine states that were developing or seeking to acquire such weapons. According to the Nuclear Policy Review, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria could be involved in a nuclear contingency. Various nonstate actors and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, which are reportedly seeking NBC and radiological weapons, also are depicted as posing a serious threat to the United States. By contrast, the review does not characterize Russia as an immediate or potential concern to national security.

Recent trends present a challenge. On one hand, there is a strategic capability optimized for a danger that no longer exists and is considered the stumbling block in Russian-American relations. On the other, failures in nonproliferation confront planners with relatively small-scale threats that could become serious problems with little warning. Although the Armed Forces may confront an enemy willing to use NBC weapons,

the revolution in military affairs provides ways of employing conventional weapons for missions once reserved for nuclear forces.

The End of MAD

The Nuclear Posture Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review indicate that mutual assured destruction is not an acceptable basis for a strategic relationship. According to the former review, the United States "will no longer plan, size, or sustain its forces as though Russia presented merely a smaller version of the threat posed by the Soviet Union." In other words, because Russian nuclear arms are seen as a waning threat, deterrence will no longer dominate nuclear doctrine and targeting.

Although the current administration has not articulated a clear plan to transform strategic relations, policy changes are creating a new bilateral framework. Washington took the initiative by announcing a shift in nuclear doctrine, negotiating strategic force reductions, and introducing confidence-building measures that were intended to reduce tension and foster relations. Viewed in this light, withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty becomes a positive step because it delivered a lethal shock to air outdated strategic framework. As the United States has repeatedly noted, the treaty stood in the way of missile defense as well as mole cooperative relations with Moscow. The agreement signed by Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin in May 2002 is part of this new framework. Though the treaty limits deployed nuclear warheads to a maximum of 2,200 by 2012, it is more of a political document than a vehicle for arms control and strategic stability. The treaty reflects changes in force structure discussed in the Nuclear Policy Review and fulfilled Russian requirements for concrete evidence of this new partnership.