5 questions every presidential candidate should answer: Nuclear deterrence edition

As the nuclear balance of power has grown increasingly complex in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the aperture with which US strategists must view the challenge of nuclear deterrence has widened. In the wake of the recent Iran deal, addressed elsewhere in this series, that aperture will likely widen further. With that challenge in mind, the next president must continue his or her predecessors’ success at avoiding the use of nuclear weapons; it may not be easy, but its importance can’t be overstated. Looking ahead, here are the five questions the next president will have to address:

Shutterstock.com

 How should American nuclear deterrence strategy change in the face of increasingly complex proliferation challenges, particularly in light of the recent nuclear deal with Iran?

In the era following World War II, the United States built an impressive, standing force of nuclear weapons. The deterrence theory guiding the development of those forces, however, was principally developed in the context of the bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, strategists and presidents face a world in which nuclear weapons have proliferated to such problematic states as North Korea and Pakistan and possibly, in the decade ahead, will do so to Iran and, in their desire to balance out Iranian power, its Middle Eastern neighbors as well. They must also contend with the ongoing strategic weapons modernization programs in China and Russia. How should deterrence strategy adapt to this more complex nuclear weapons environment?

 How would you respond to Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty?

The US State Department’s 2015 report on arms control and nonproliferation compliance found Russia in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, by virtue of its possession and ongoing testing of ground-launched cruise missiles. A new Russian intermediate-range cruise missile would not pose a threat to the continental United States but could threaten any number of our allies in Europe and in Northeast Asia. To date, the Obama administration has announced no specific responses to this violation. What actions or policies should the US government adopt in light of this significant breach of the treaty?

 How would you respond to Russian nuclear threats to allied states?

Recently, Russia has reportedly threatened to use nuclear weapons should the US and its NATO allies move forces into the Baltic States. This falls on the heels of Russian military exercises in 2009 and 2013 that simulated nuclear strikes against Poland and, more recently, provocative flights of nuclear-capable Russian bombers close to allied airspace. How should the US and its NATO allies respond? For some time, the principal discussion within NATO has been whether to eliminate or substantially reduce its tactical nuclear arsenal, with Germany in 2009 supporting the removal of all US weapons from Europe. In light of Russian behavior, should NATO review its nuclear-force posture policies, accelerate nuclear weapons modernization plans, and adopt air- and missile-defense plans that directly address the increased Russian threat?

 How would you respond to the expansion of North Korea’s nuclear program?

Before Iran’s nuclear ambitions took center stage, North Korea openly violated its solemn obligations as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by successfully developing and testing nuclear weapons. Steadily improving its nuclear and missile programs over the past half-decade, Pyongyang has laid the groundwork for an even greater expansion in the years to come. As it develops more advanced nuclear and missile capabilities, it will pose an even greater threat to two major US allies—South Korea and Japan—potentially threaten the US homeland, and likely expand its role as a lead exporter of nuclear technology to rogue regimes. The options available to the president may be limited, but what should be done to slow Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons progress? What role should US relations with Japan and South Korea play in this effort?

 How do you plan to modernize the nuclear triad?

America’s nuclear inventory of intercontinental missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines is old and getting older and needs modernization and replacement. Plans are in place to build some new systems—namely the ongoing Ohio-class submarine replacement and the planned long-range strike bomber programs—but these replacements will not enter service for many years. Additionally, the next president must contend with a dilapidated nuclear weapons infrastructure that demands repairs and reforms. As the military languishes under the budget cuts enacted by Congress and the Obama administration, these crucial modernization programs have already experienced substantial delays. Indeed, the Navy’s leadership admits it doesn’t have sufficient funds both to meet its conventional shipbuilding goals and replace its ballistic missile submarine fleet. What steps should be taken to see the modernization program through to a quick and successful end? Should the traditional nuclear triad—land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and strategic bombers—retain its current form or should new models of deterrence be considered?

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1INyCg2