Brute force and ignorance define US’ nuclear review

The intention alone — to enhance the United States’ nuclear deterrence, which is already the most powerful in the world — should be enough to raise the alarm, as it runs counter to the international commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

However, the real danger of its new nuclear policy lies in what it signals the US plans to do to enhance its nuclear capabilities. In its first Nuclear Posture Review in eight years, the Pentagon calls for, among other measures, the development of smaller “low-yield” nuclear weapons that can be used in response to what it calls “extreme circumstances”, including non-nuclear attacks such as cyberattacks.

Whether because of its economic need to feed its military-industrial beast, or its genuine inability to see beyond force as a means of crisis resolution, the US seems intent on securing the bragging rights to not only the biggest, but also the smallest nuclear button, which promises to start a new nuclear arms race.

And despite claims making them smaller does not lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, the US is clearly developing them as weapons to be used, not as a deterrent.

This will only increase the possibility of a nuclear war.

Since the US demonstrated the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons, with the atomic bombs it dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of World War II, no nuclear weapons have been used due to the Cold War equilibrium of mutually assured destruction.

However, the new US policy will nullify this. From its previously revealed National Defense Strategy and the National Security Strategy to Friday’s Nuclear Posture Review, the US government under President Donald Trump has sent an unmistakable message that the US is determined to seek military preeminence. Once again professing to be more sinned against than sinning, the US is seeking to justify the adjustment to its nuclear strategy as countermeasure in response to the threat and competition from countries such as China and Russia.

The review does come at a critical moment for the US, because it does face a “complex and demanding” international security situation, but that is one of its own making as it seems unable to let go of outdated ideological differences.

In the report’s preface, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis says: “We should look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be”.

The Trump administration seems intent on doing the opposite.