KYLE BALZER
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has laid bare several uncomfortable realities about nuclear weapons. By slamming the door shut on the post-Cold War holiday from history, the war has unquestionably ushered in a new era of great-power nuclear competition. Gone are the more tranquil days when Russia was considered a reliable arms-control partner, and China just a rudimentary nuclear power. Moscow now exhibits no inhibitions about rattling every nuclear saber at its disposal, and Beijing has undertaken a rapid nuclear expansion to advance its revisionist agenda in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.
But the Russo–Ukrainian War has also revealed another unpleasant reality closer to home: America’s nuclear rhetoric is woefully inadequate for a new era of great-power competition. U.S. leaders must redress the way they talk about nuclear war — or risk losing the public support required to compete in the nuclear shadow.
Take, for example, Donald J. Trump’s recent suggestion at a campaign rally that he might expose America’s European allies to Russian predations. The former president’s remark — which follows the recent revelation that Trump believes Americans risk nuclear war if they don’t reelect him — has provoked an open debate in Germany about the merits of an all-European nuclear arsenal. At a time when Washington would prefer Europe to focus on conventional capabilities, the allies are, instead, speculating about an independent nuclear deterrent to hedge against Trump 2.0.
Notwithstanding today’s hyper-partisan politics, however, America’s loose rhetoric is unquestionably a bipartisan affair. Consider President Biden’s invocations of World War III in response to Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling earlier in the Ukraine war. When Ukraine was gearing up for its 2022 counteroffensive, which would throw Russian lines into disarray, the White House refused to arm Kyiv with long-range weapons for fear of igniting an escalatory spiral. The nuclear specter undoubtedly shaped the Biden administration’s risk-aversion — with the president warning at the time, “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Unsurprisingly, U.S. public opinion mirrors Biden’s and Trump’s shared nuclear anxiety. As Russia reinforced its lines in the final months of 2022, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s annual defense survey recorded a rising fear of nuclear escalation among Americans. Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed expressed concern about the prospect of nuclear war in the next five years. The Reagan Institute’s 2023 poll recorded that 74 percent were worried about the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack.
More concerning, however, is public ambivalence about U.S. nuclear policy. According to a joint Chicago Council–Carnegie Corporation survey conducted in 2023, less than half of the respondents (47 percent) believed that nuclear weapons made them safer. Nearly the same share of respondents (43 percent) either believed nuclear weapons didn’t improve their safety or said they lacked the knowledge to register an informed opinion. What’s more, those with little or no memory of the Cold War were more likely to doubt that nuclear weapons made a difference. A silver lining, though, is that the majority of respondents expressed an interest in learning more about the subject.
The Biden administration — or its prospective successor — should take this public interest as an opportunity to educate a generation of Americans who came of age when nuclear weapons were an afterthought. This generation, like their forerunners who prevailed in the Cold War, will be asked to support the long-term sustainment and possible expansion of the nuclear arsenal. It is this generation, then, which Washington must engage to explain why the nation invests in weapons with such awesome power. And it is this generation whose support will be required for the country to run the calculated risks inherent in great-power competition.
Washington must restore the cultural relevance of nuclear deterrence. Americans lack a tragic sensibility that was more familiar to the generations that defeated fascism and then confronted Soviet communism. In the fraught period ahead, the nation might be tested in crises analogous to those of the early Cold War. It is well past time for a presidential address that explains the stakes at hand, and the irreplaceable role of nuclear deterrence in peacefully advancing American interests.
But the words in such an address must be chosen carefully. Public discourse should avoid doom-laden scenarios and, instead, focus on the peaceful role played by the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are the bedrock of the U.S. defense posture, which preserves an international environment favorable to the American way of life. Washington would do well to avoid hysterics and instead emphasize how nuclear weapons underwrite the nation’s security. Otherwise, it will jeopardize the public’s support for American nuclear policy in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment