Is US Nuclear Deterrence In Jeopardy? Lost?

By Peter R. Huessy, Senior Warrior Nuclear Weapons Analyst

With the pending end of the New START treaty in 2026, the buildup of China’s nuclear forces, the cooperation among the “axis of evil,”* the multiple nuclear threats by Russia’s Putin, the Iranian recklessness in launching thousands of missiles and rockets at Israel, the Houthis taking down Red Sea western commercial shipping, and the deadly Hamas attacks on Israel, the concern grows that the world is spinning out of control.

This apparent loss of deterrence or as Victor Davis Hanson put it “the loss of consequences for rogue behavior” foretells a world of escalating conflict just when at the same time nuclear competition is growing. But even worse, after 2026 there may be no numerical limits to nuclear arsenals, an important point underscored by the remarks of a top White House official this past week.

This gloomy prospect in turn has generated proposals to remedy the deteriorating deterrent position of the US and its allies. Some United States nuclear options being discussed are positive including (1) acquiring enhanced nuclear capabilities (the Posture Commission); (2) adding numerically to the US nuclear deployed arsenal (the Biden administration); (3) incorporating an additional nuclear component into the annual defense bill, (Senators King, Wicker and Fischer); and (4) expanding the defense budget initially with $55 billion more spending annually for conventional and nuclear modernization (Senator Wicker.). Other ideas however are downright dangerous such as (5) withdrawing the US extended deterrent from NATO and our western Pacific allies (Quincy Institute); (6) adopting a minimal deterrent strategy as part of a new arms control framework agreement with Russia (Korb and Cimbala); or (7) killing the ICBM leg of the Triad (Senator Markey and Representative Garamendi).

The uncertainty about our country’s security is rooted in an understanding that since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet empire, the assumed peaceful unipolar world of the United States on the one hand and everyone else on the other (the “end of history” framework) has not gone well. Only Desert Storm, (1991) the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001 and 2003) and the destruction of ISIS (2019) were foreign policy “successes” as the initial toppling of evil regimes and the wipeout of ISIS were accomplished with stunning skill and speed.

But now there seems to be little sustained success in US security policy. The US has withdrawn without achieving any key objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the Taliban back in power and the Iranians holding considerable away over not only Iraq, but Lebanon, Yemen and Syria as well. Russia has invaded Ukraine twice and paid no price for its incursions into Georgia and Moldova. China thumbs its nose at the International Court while claiming vast areas of the Pacific as its own territory.

As a result of the defeat of the DPRK in 1953 after its cross-border aggression, terrorism and the companion wars of national liberation became the centerpiece of Soviet aggression around the world. State directed or sponsored terrorism was as General Scowcroft warned about nuclear armed missiles “the coin of the realm.”

The war against South Vietnam began as early as 1954 as a guerrilla terror campaign directed by the North, masquerading as “homegrown.” It took 21 years for communism to prevail, but it was accomplished ironically by a conventional cross border invasion with 18 divisions with hundreds of Soviet tanks, precipitated by the abandonment of the South by the US Congress and a “peace agreement” that left the north’s Army throughout South Vietnam. By reneging on its promise to assist the South with military aid, the Congress triggered not only the fall of Saigon but a few months earlier the fall of Cambodia.