Why the U.S. Doesn’t Require Additional Missiles.
Addressing Nuclear Challenges: The Stance of the Biden Administration
U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan highlighted the nuclear advancements of China and Russia and the U.S. response plan. Sullivan reassured that despite these concerns, the U.S. has no intention to counter these build-ups with a similar nuclear expansion.
Emergence of Two Nuclear-Armed Adversaries
The push to bolster nuclear forces arises from the changing security dynamics with the U.S. confronting two nuclear-armed adversaries, China and Russia. As China progresses its nuclear weapons, Russia is similarly upgrading its nuclear prowess.
Shifting Dynamics of U.S. Deterrence Strategy
Historically, the U.S. treated deterrence strategies for China and Russia as separate issues. Now, the potential threat of simultaneous aggression from both has complicated U.S. deterrence measures.
Debating U.S. Nuclear Strategy in the New Landscape
Many analysts argue that the U.S.’s current nuclear stance is insufficient to deter the combined nuclear strength of China and Russia. Proposals have emerged suggesting the U.S. should increase its deployed warheads.
Reassessing the Threat from Two Nuclear Rivals
While the emergence of two nuclear rivals for the U.S. is a significant concern, escalating the U.S. nuclear arsenal is not necessarily the right answer. Increasing nuclear forces can lead to an arms race, straining relations and potentially increasing nuclear conflict risks.
The Crux of Nuclear Strategy Differences
Differing opinions about nuclear strategy hinge on whether the focus should be on targeting the adversary’s nuclear capabilities or their society and infrastructure. The debate between counterforce (targeting military assets) and countervalue (targeting civilian assets) strategies has been ongoing for decades.
Analyzing Counterforce Strategy Logic
Counterforce strategies aim to disable an opponent’s nuclear assets to protect one’s own state. However, this approach faces criticism for potentially causing vast civilian casualties and escalating tensions, increasing the risk of nuclear conflict.
The Logic of Infrastructure Targeting
Infrastructure targeting aims to deter adversaries by threatening societal destruction rather than solely focusing on disabling their nuclear assets. Such a strategy emphasizes the ability to inflict widespread damage rather than achieve numerical superiority in nuclear warheads.
Counterarguments to Infrastructure Targeting
Critics argue that targeting infrastructure could be considered immoral and in violation of international humanitarian law. However, such critiques overlook the massive civilian casualties counterforce strategies could also incur.
Implications of a Three-Way Arms Race
Counterforce doctrines might ignite a nuclear arms race among the U.S., China, and Russia. Such an arms race would be difficult to manage and could lead to intensified political tensions.
Choosing the Right Nuclear Doctrine
The U.S. currently leans towards a counterforce doctrine, but the emergence of two nuclear peers offers an opportunity to reconsider its approach. Infrastructure targeting might present a more viable strategy to ensure peace and deterrence.
Conclusion: Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Doctrine
As the nuclear landscape shifts, the U.S. should reassess its strategies to avoid unnecessary arms races and potential nuclear conflict. An emphasis on diplomacy, communication, and infrastructure targeting can help manage the challenges posed by two nuclear peers.
