Biden Should Fight for Nuclear Arms Control

By JASON SIBERT

The Joe Biden administration has certainly been confronted with challenges as of late.

The media attention has focused on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, rising inflation (modest by 1970’s standards), and a revival of COVID-19. However, less has been said about the wrong path the administration has taken on nuclear weapons and nuclear arms control in general. If one looks at our history, many presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have led arms control efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Although there are fewer nuclear weapons polluting arsenals than there were in the Cold War, there are still 14,000 nuclear weapons and nine nuclear armed states, as stated by arms control expert Daryl Kimball in this story “Biden’s NPR Must Reduce the Role of Nuclear Weapons” at ArmsControl.org.

Mr. Biden said from the beginning of his 2020 campaign that he wanted to reestablish the role of our country in the field of arms control, a wonderful goal. In February, Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed the New START agreement, which limits both countries’ nuclear arsenals. However, the current president missed an opportunity to scale back on former President Donald Trump’s bloated $44 billion annual nuclear budget. In the future, Biden must use the Nuclear Posture Review [NPR], a report and plan of action on our nuclear arsenal, as a weapon in the fight for nuclear arms control.

His NPR should contain a policy that downplays the reliance on nuclear weapons, and he must adopt a sole purpose policy when it comes to this type of weaponry, or a policy that rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. The fewer options there are for nuclear weapons, the less likely they they’ll be used. Second, this NPR should rule out targeting requirements that are used to determine how many nuclear weapons are “enough.” Although Russia is updating its nuclear forces, and China is rapidly increasing its smaller strategic retaliatory force, including systems to evade US missile defenses, our arsenal exceeds both countries’ arsenals. President Barack Obama stated in 2013 that the US could reduce its deployed strategic nuclear weapons by one-third below the New START levels. The case for the reduction is still relevant.

Quality diplomacy, and the establishment of international law or norms, requires signaling, and Biden must signal to the world that the United States seeks a smaller nuclear force. This would lower the tensions between the world’s geopolitical competitors and create a signal saying that our country is fulfilling our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Another relevant point, as stated by Kimball, the US Strategic Command’s Cold War logic makes no sense in our world, as having more bombs does not translate into a more effective deterrence. It squanders funds and robs the government of money for more pressing needs. In a speech to the United Nations, Biden said that “we stand at an infection point in history.” He was very right. The actions world leaders take in the next decade are critical to whether we address our current global threats and challenges.

Jason Sibert is Lead Writer for the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis.

From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2021

Populist.com