Adapting America's Nuclear Strategy: Beyond Arms Control to Dynamic Deterrence

 

The aggressive nuclear advancements of Russia under Putin and China under Xi Jinping necessitate a significant recalibration of America's nuclear posture, prioritizing a credible deterrent over numerical parity.

In the nuanced debate about America’s nuclear strategy, two distinct perspectives emerge. One hinges on the principles of arms control, focusing on adherence to treaties like the 2011 New START between America and Russia. The other emphasizes the level of deterrence necessary in a world where America soon faces two major nuclear adversaries, Russia and China. This debate is crucial as it shapes America’s response to the evolving global security landscape.

The essence of the arms control viewpoint lies in adhering to existing treaties and negotiating further reductions in nuclear warheads. This perspective, however, often overlooks the key questions of why nuclear weapons are maintained and how the international security environment has shifted since the inception of treaties like New START. In contrast, those advocating for stronger deterrence argue that America’s nuclear arsenal needs to be both large and diverse, encompassing shorter- and longer-range missiles and bombs deployable from land, sea, or air. This arsenal should adapt to the changing scale of hostility, shrinking or expanding in response to the threats posed.

The strategic context in which these discussions are happening has undergone significant transformation. Post-Cold War, America significantly cut back its nuclear arsenal, a decision justified by the perceived reduction in threat from Moscow and the marginal role of China in global nuclear dynamics. However, the aggressive actions of Vladimir Putin in Crimea and Ukraine, along with the expansion and modernization of Russia’s nuclear capabilities, have radically changed this landscape. Simultaneously, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has witnessed the largest build-up of nuclear forces in decades, using this capability to assert its territorial and regional ambitions.

In the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, marked by the aggressive postures of Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping, the United States faces a critical need to revise its deterrence strategy. An effective deterrent must focus on targeting the core interests of these adversarial leaders – their grip on power, the stability of their regimes, and their military capabilities. America's strategic objective should not be to mirror the nuclear capabilities of Russia and China in terms of sheer numbers. Instead, the focus should be on maintaining a credible and demonstrable threat to the critical assets that these leaders hold dear. This approach requires a nuclear arsenal that is versatile and comprehensive, capable of addressing a range of threats. It's not just about having a large number of weapons, but about having the right kind of weapons to deter specific kinds of aggression and threats to global stability.

The existing arms control treaties, notably the New START treaty, are basically inadequate in addressing the current challenges. This treaty, which focuses on capping the number of deployed intercontinental nuclear warheads, overlooks the strategic significance of shorter-range nuclear weapons. This is a significant oversight, given that Russia's arsenal of shorter-range nuclear weapons far exceeds that of the United States, creating an imbalance that could undermine the effectiveness of American deterrence. The limitation of the New START treaty in addressing the full spectrum of nuclear threats underlines the need for a more comprehensive arms control framework. This framework would not only have to cover all types of nuclear weapons, including shorter-range arsenals, but also ensure that the mechanisms for verification are robust and effective. Such measures are crucial in maintaining a credible deterrence posture and ensuring compliance with the treaty obligations.

Looking ahead, it is essential for any future arms control agreements to include China, an emerging nuclear power with significant regional and global aspirations. To achieve this, there needs to be a shift in Beijing’s stance towards greater transparency and an acceptance of limits on its growing military capabilities. A comprehensive arms control framework that includes all major nuclear powers, and accounts for all types of nuclear weapons, would be a significant step toward global stability. This approach would not only address the shortcomings of current treaties like New START but also create a more balanced and effective deterrent against potential nuclear threats. It would enable the United States to better manage its strategic relationships with Russia and China, ensuring a more stable and secure global nuclear landscape. This requires diplomatic finesse and strategic foresight, as the United States seeks to navigate an increasingly complex and multipolar world.

In essence, America's nuclear strategy must evolve in response to the changing global landscape. The intertwined nature of arms control and deterrence must guide this evolution. The Biden administration, drawing on insights from entities like the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, must rapidly recalibrate America's nuclear force. This recalibration is vital not only for maintaining strategic balance but also for ensuring global stability and peace in an era marked by the rising nuclear ambitions of Russia and China.