The future of Nukes

Do we need tactical nukes in Europe?  Jamelle over at the United States of Jamerica notices a Post article on an odd nuclear policy survey that came out recently.

Perhaps I’m missing the “big picture,” but I don’t actually understand the rationale behind maintaining any nuclear presence  in Europe, much less one dependent on tactical warheads.  I mean, taken in isolation the decision makes sense: NATO members are relying on the nuclear umbrella to deter a conventional or nuclear attack from Russia or a particularly unstable member of the former Soviet Union.  Where it comes unglued however, is when you consider the not-so-insignificant fact that Russia is basically a glorified third-world nation, with a deteriorating military and even worse economy…

“But what about NATO?”  As you can probably guess, I’m not entirely convinced of NATO’s necessity in the 21st century; it is a product of the Cold War, and it seems to me that it should have been dismantled or at least dramatically downsized in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapsed.

I disagree on NATO.  There’s some interesting questions about the need for NATO versus say an EU military, but until those get resolved I think military alliance with Europe’s democracies is quite natural and want NATO around to help with peacekeeping and to consolidate emerging democracies with clear borders in eastern Europe (Ukraine and Georgia don’t meet that later criteria).  But on the main point, I quite agree.  Tactical nukes are a holdover from an area where the USSR had conventional weapons superiority.  They don’t any more. 

As an addendum, here’s what I thought was the funniest line from the article:

In yesterday's report, the Schlesinger panel said that "the most difficult challenge" facing the incoming Obama administration "will be in persuading this nation of the abiding requirement for nuclear forces."

Well if that’s the toughest challenge facing Obama, I’d say he should give up and focus on easier stuff like reviving the economy.  More serious thoughts after the cut.

I tried to find the basis in the press conference or the report and I can’t, so I’m not sure about the context.  Regardless, this is just a ridiculous statement.  I live near a nuclear free-zone in Takoma Park, but does anyone seriously believe that a penny of political capital needs to be spent to persuade Americans that we shouldn’t get rid of all of our nukes immediately? 

This isn’t to say there aren’t real problems, this panel was convened in response to several recent scandals involving the Air Forces handling of  its nuclear mission.  Part of the problem is the increasing strain as we dedicate some of the bomber assets to more conventional tasks in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The solution is either to step up resources for the nuclear mission or pair it back. 

I favor trimming the triad, focus on land and sub-based ICBMs and free up the planes.  But I’m no expert on this.  What strikes me as bizarre, the panel seems to think that we don’t just need to better fund the current mission, we need to expand it.  They cite mass proliferation of nukes but the main deterrent threat there involves nuclear forensics so it will be clear we could trace and explosion to the responsible party.  We can already destroy human civilization, any new nuclear states are a subset of that group.