To try and understand world events is not easy, requires some effort, and in this day and age, will likely still lead to a lack of consensus. Still, gaining from perspective from the social media posts that add nothing but venom to any debate is a wise move, particularly if you care about formulating an opinion based on some correlation with facts however tenuous.
I find this NHK report interesting, because among those not favoring a change in U.S. policy–not to use nuclear weapons as proposed recently by the President–are some of our closest allies including Japan and the United Kingdom. Sitting underneath our nuclear umbrella, Japan and the U.K. amongst others rely on our current position as a key component of their defense strategy. How might they react were we to change our position. Is what they might do worth considering in perspective?
Should our allies have input into any change in policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons? If the decision we make goes against their national interests can we not expect them to alter their position on first strike (UK) or nuclear weapons access (Japan)? And would their decision in turn affect our defense policies in the future. A cascade of changes could await us, none good, all most certainly leading to instability.
The current position of the U.S. on the use of nuclear weapons is one characterized by many as one of “strategic ambiguity”. Strategic ambiguity seems seems to have worked up until now, although an it is impossible to really counter this argument. To assess and react are the keys to the current position, neither ruling a first strike in or out.
To decide to make a preemptive first nuclear strike would likely be a decision invested with more time and thought than any retaliatory strike. Also, it would likely be a reaction to a situation of growing instability where other options are fast becoming untenable. Such situations have probably been few and far between although Cuba is one we all recognize as an example.
But to launch a retaliatory strike while enemy missiles are en route to their targets may provide the President less than 8 minutes in which to make a decision. The actual and detailed procedural steps to launch a retaliatory strike or any strike for that matter are also shrouded in ambiguity for good reason. But theoretically, from the time a Russian or Chinese ICBM launch is made on the U.S., until its impact is about 30 minutes, with analysts suggesting that President gets only 8 of those minutes in which to make an informed decision. Let us hope if such a situation every occurs that there is no virus in the data centers that process the alerts or the wrong decision could most certainly be made.
The current political environment suggests that the “Dr. Strangelove” scenario is how the 30 minutes could play out (cynically or seriously, you must decide), although a crisis meeting of the magnitude shown in that movie is unrealistic in 30 minutes (the scene is better for depicting the decision to launch a first strike). But most popularizations are done more for political expediency than anything else.
An editorial in favor of maintaining our current position is found here, and discusses some of the existing steps in place that would initiate the command to arm and strike if it ever comes to that:
In Favor of Strategic Ambiguity
Any move away from our current position, I would argue, could result in further re-shuffling of the international order with increased instability worldwide. This is hardly something we need in the current global situation.
The 3:00 a.m. call of political advertising fame fits the retaliatory strike scenario. And, to suggest that one candidate or another will over-react when given their 8 minutes is silly at best, and extends from political predispositions. The most important issue in the event of an attack is the bona fide of the data presented to the Commander in Chief and the pre-set options arranged for such contingencies (supposedly these are in the famed “fox” always near to the President). While many are worried about the temperament or health of the candidates running for President, I am more worried about the reliability of the data presented to the President during those precious 8 minutes when he has to consider a variety of options including whether to defend allies such as the UK or Japan.
This is not to say that the use of nuclear weapons should be taken lightly as a numbers or videogame. But ambiguity is often better than single-mindedness, and with the right perspective and verified data the probability of making a right decision (such as they might be in such situations) in those precious 8 minutes may just increase.
NOTE: An update to this story appeared on the NHK World website Wednesday, August 17th. First Strike Update
