America’s Outdated Approach to Countering Nuclear Threats Must Change

maradon 333 / shutterstock.com
maradon 333 / shutterstock.com

As tensions escalate globally, experts warn America can’t afford complacency when facing off against rogue states seeking nuclear supremacy. The US must revamp its outdated stance towards counter-nuclear strategies amid growing concerns about China, North Korea, and Iran beefing up their atomic capacities.

Robert Peters, ex-special advisor under Barack Obama’s Pentagon tenure, sounded the warning bell: “For far too long, the United States has ignored revitalizing its nuclear arsenal. China and Russia have expanded their nuclear arsenals to achieve nuclear parity – if not advantage – over the United States by the 2030s.” He emphasized,

“Inaction is not an option. A world where the United States suffers nuclear disadvantage, while our adversaries enjoy nuclear advantage, is a world where nuclear war is more likely.”

According to a soon-to-be-released Heritage Foundation study co-authored by Mr. Peters, entitled “Building the Nuclear Arsenal of the 21st Century”, he argues the need for drastic change in how we tackle these emerging threats. In essence, abandoning decades-old policies aimed at achieving global denuclearization might become essential amidst rising geo-political uncertainty faced by Washington and her western partners.

Instead, expanding and modernizing America’s own nuclear capacity becomes vital – including boosting sub-marine based ICBMs and enhancing land-based strategic deterrents. Moreover, redeploying existing tactical nukes stored away since retirement into operational readiness may prove crucial.

Washington holds around 1300 retired warheads awaiting disposal; meanwhile, Russia boasts roughly similar numbers waiting disassembly. This interim measure precedes large-scale production plans aiming for annual output targets set at eighty units annually come 2030 and two hundred yearly starting 2035.

Furthermore, re-evaluating current deployment patterns involving potentially placing extra US nuclear assets throughout European territories alongside possible introduction into Asia-Pacific regions were suggested improvements outlined in the upcoming report.

These recommendations arrive hot on heels of heightened anxieties surrounding nuclear safety spanning months, especially subsequent to Russia pulling back last February from the decade-long New Start accord brokered initially between Presidents Obama & Putin.

Russia accounts for nearly half of Earth’s entire nuclear cache along-side USA holding approximately five thousand four-hundred forty-four warheads each respectively. Meanwhile, China maintains only some five hundred known devices whereas Pyongyang claims fifty such armaments. Other major players France UK India Pakistand Isreal hold varying quantities contributing collectively above twelve-thousand-one-hundread overall worldwide stocks.

During cold-war era, mutual-assured-destruction fears kept superpowers in check via so-called MAD doctrine. However, recent advancements allow smaller yield options making old-school thinking obsolete.

Heritage foundation analysis notes that mere punitive retaliation won’t suffice anymore citing, “Deterrence through threats of punishment is necessary, but not sufficient for the threats the United States faces.”

Rather they propose adopting multi-pronged approaches neutralize escalation risks posed by rival powers.

Historically, successive administrations pursued bilateral treaties geared toward reducing weapon counts among signatory countries. But considering present-day realities, pursuing those objectives appears futile.

Per the forthcoming report, “The United States will not abandon arms control or non-proliferation goals – but it must recognize that for the time being, the global security environment does not lend itself to treaty-based arms control or other non-treaty-based risk reduction or confidence-building measures”.

Implementing recommended reforms wouldn’t come cheaply however. Present estimates suggest diverting an added percent-two-percent share of DoD spending budgets covering costs associated with upgrading America’s nuclear shield.

Yet proponents argue investing heavily upfront beats footing astronomical bills down-the-line combatting full-blown conflicts.