Should We Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Posture Review?
Here’s What You Need To Know
Last week, the Department of Defense (DoD) released the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to ensure a “safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.” In the days following its release, the NPR has been described both in the U.S. and abroad as everything from “flawed overkill” to “bringing humankind closer to annihilation.”
Beyond the hyperbole, an evaluation of the facts pertaining to the NPR demonstrate a different view of the document and what it means for the U.S., our allies, and our adversaries. These are the key points you need to know about the NPR:
- What Is An NPR? The NPR is a major look at the policy and capability of America’s nuclear arsenal. On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to undertake this review, which was last conducted by the Obama Administration in 2010, and prior to that in 1994 and 2001. The NPR released last week reflects changes in the geopolitical landscape during that time, including a resurgent Russia, an emboldened China, a North Korea on the verge of perfecting nuclear-armed missiles capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, and an Iranian regime that has continued to develop weapons programs despite the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
- What This NPR Does: Among the key conclusions reached in the NPR are the need to modernize both the nuclear triad – the U.S. military’s ability to launch nuclear attacks from land, sea, or air – and the command-and-control system to better confront and defend against the challenges posed by adversaries with advanced cyber weapon capabilities. Some of the specific modernization programs included in the NPR were initiated during the Obama Administration, like the Columbia-class nuclear missile submarine and the B-21 long-range strike bomber. Criticism of the NPR, therefore, may be more a reflection of who the President is rather than the underlying policy.
- Armageddon Or Asymmetric Response? One proposed change in policy is the focus of some critics who worry it could increase the likelihood for the use of nuclear weapons. The change would allow the Pentagon to consider responding with small nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear attack launched by an adversary against U.S. nuclear “command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.” Particularly given the proliferation of asymmetric warfare, American officials believe that this change is a “strategic imperative” because these low-yield nuclear weapons, when introduced into the U.S. arsenal, can deter Russia’s perceived belief that it could use its own low-yield weapons in a limited conflict without triggering wider U.S. nuclear retaliation.
- What This NPR Does Not Do: While proposing the development of low-yield nuclear weapons among other updates, the NPR does not mandate new American nuclear weapons. These reforms would utilize existing nuclear warheads and update components as proposed in the prior Administration, without resulting in the U.S. reneging on its approach of sustaining its current nuclear levels.
- Is The NPR Unnecessarily Destabilizing To The Current Order? Although critics may view a low-yield nuclear weapon as destabilizing, American nuclear weapons have continued to deter a large-scale attack on the U.S. and its allies since the end of World War Two and lived up to treaty obligations. On the contrary, Russia has been accused by members of both parties of violating the spirit and intent of existing nuclear arms treaties, and Russian President Putin’s remarks in 2014 about the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons suggest that America’s nuclear posture should be updated to account for this threat.
The review released last week does not change the known unknowns of nuclear deterrence, nor the underlying risks associated with it. Rather, this review – conducted by the Department of Defense as it has been in previous administrations – provides an account of the status of America’s nuclear deterrent, and how it can continue to keep Americans safe well into the future.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
News You Can Use
STARTUPS STAY PRIVATE
The decline in the number of companies choosing to go public has led some to proclaim the death of the American initial public offering (IPO), while others proclaim this negative view is flawed. However, the impact of this downward trend should concern people who want to grow the economy and allow more Americans to share in its prosperity.
Since 1997, the number of public U.S. companies each year has halved to around 3,600 in 2016, meaning that the opportunity for everyday Americans to invest in new, fast-growing companies (either directly or through mutual funds, pensions, and other similar vehicles) – and to reap the rewards of doing so – are narrowing. While startups, whose intangible investments are increasingly more important than capital investments, would benefit from alternative venues to list in favor of a full IPO, the question of how to keep investment opportunities open for working Americans remains unclear.
Related Posts:
(ALREADY) PAID FAMILY LEAVE?
Can paid family leave be already paid for, without creating a whole new entitlement program? That is the view of a recent study from the Independent Women’s Forum, which was adapted into an editorial for The Wall Street Journal. In the piece, the authors suggest allowing new parents the ability to collect early Social Security benefits for a period of time after the birth of a child if they agree to delay the collection of their retirement benefits in the future for a comparable amount of time.
This policy would be in stark contrast to an entirely new, unfunded federal leave program, as well as the current patchwork of mandated leave policies at the state and local levels, and despite criticism, the support from Capitol Hill and others may mean that should paid family leave become a reality, it may do so without placing an additional mandate or tax burden on employers.
COMMENCING CRYPTO-EVASIVE MANEUVERS
Several weeks ago, we speculated in TL;DR about the coming worldwide crypto crackdown, especially given the concern that countries could use cryptocurrencies to evade international sanctions. Well, it seems we’ve arrived. This week, Axios discussed the challenge for regulators in combatting such evasion tactics, both in keeping up with the different currencies, of which there are more than 1,400, and in regulating without hampering legitimate innovation in this emerging space.
A senior U.S. Treasury official recently called for greater regulation “all over the world” to prevent the use of cryptocurrencies for illegal purposes, and indeed, sanctions packages will need to be designed going forward to account for this evasion. But, as one skeptic noted, the countries trying to evade sanctions may not ultimately “have the capacity to pull this off” as regulators adapt.
A YUGE SHIFT IN THE “ROLE OF GOVERNMENT”
In his Roll Call column, Stuart Rothenberg argues that the profound shift in the public’s attitude towards the “role of government” will have a far greater significance on the midterm elections than the more frequently considered presidential approval rating or generic Congressional ballot test.
When an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey asked respondents about their view on the “role of government” last month, 58% of adults said government should do more “to solve problems and help meet the needs of the people,” while 38% said it was doing too much. This 20-point difference is a huge gap historically, and although this number can fluctuate greatly in reaction to each president’s agenda, the current receptivity to a larger role for government may be a warning to Republicans as they attempt to keep their majorities in Congress in this year’s midterm elections.
STAFF MATTERS
A recent study in the Journal of Politics by Jacob Montgomery and Brendan Nyhan is one of the first studies to empirically quantify the impact congressional staffers have on legislative behavior. The study examined senior staffers in Congress and mapped out the different lawmakers they worked for over their careers.
What they found is that staff matters, and in particular, that the “linkages” created between legislative offices is a good indicator of lawmaker effectiveness and ideological alignment. At a time when diminished resources for Congress can make it difficult enough to retain and attract experienced staffers, this study may further buttress the case that good staff is worth it: for the lawmaker and their constituents.