WP - Nuclear weapon reductions must be part of strategic analysis

Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft at the Washington Postissued an arms control caution.

Money quote(s):

"A New START treaty reestablishing the process of nuclear arms control has recently taken effect. Combined with reductions in the U.S. defense budget, this will bring the number of nuclear weapons in the United States to the lowest overall level since the 1950s. The Obama administration is said to be considering negotiations for a new round of nuclear reductionsto bring about ceilings as low as 300 warheads. Before momentum builds on that basis, we feel obliged to stress our conviction that the goal of future negotiations should be strategic stability and that lower numbers of weapons should be a consequence of strategic analysis, not an abstract preconceived determination." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Measure first, then cut. Pre-determined outcomes are subobtimal, to say the least. They may possibly be disastrous. Keep reading.

"Strategic stability is not inherent with low numbers of weapons; indeed, excessively low numbers could lead to a situation in which surprise attacks are conceivable."

Excessively low numbers of weapons available for a second strike (i.e., retaliation) translates into an excessively low number of targets necessary for a successful first strike (against us).

"The precondition of the next phase of U.S. nuclear weapons policy must be to enhance and enshrine the strategic stability that has preserved global peace and prevented the use of nuclear weapons for two generations."

In other words, something seems to be working, so let's not just dissassemble it because we've got a nice, shiny new (old/unproven) theory.

Frankly, despite decades of nuclear theoretizing and "thinking about the unthinkable," nobody really knows why deterrence has worked (if, in fact, it's "deterrence" that's been operative theory) or whether MAD worked or what.

(But something's kept the wheels from falling off since 1945.)

"(S)trategic stability requires maintaining strategic forces of sufficient size and composition that a first strike cannot reduce retaliation to a level acceptable to the aggressor."

The U.S. has depended upon the "triad" doctrine for its strategic nuclear forces, resting upon three "legs": ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear-armed submarines. Undercutting one (or more) of these legs is something that should only be attempted after considerable forethought.

(Other nuclear capabilities have been developed and deployed over the years, especially in the realm of theatre [or tactical-level] nuclear forces such as artillery, intermediate-range missiles, and ADMs.)

"(I)n assessing the level of unacceptable damage, the United States cannot assume that a potential enemy will adhere to values or calculations identical to our own. We need a sufficient number of weapons to pose a threat to what potential aggressors value under every conceivable circumstance. We should avoid strategic analysis by mirror-imaging."

Mirror-imaging is just one of the analytic traps to be avoided at all costs, but un-trained analysts do it all the time.

"(T)he composition of our strategic forces cannot be defined by numbers alone. It also depends on the type of delivery vehicles and their mix. If the composition of the U.S. deterrent force is modified as a result of reduction, agreement or for other reasons, a sufficient variety must be retained, together with a robust supporting command and control system, so as to guarantee that a preemptive attack cannot succeed."

See my remarks about the nuclear triad.

And read the whole thing.



Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and national security adviser from 1969 to 1975. Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser from 1975 to 1977 and 1989 to 1993.

4/22

NYT - Obama Is Urged to Open High-Tech Exports

New York Times

Obama Is Urged to Open High-Tech Exports

By CORNELIA DEAN and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: January 8, 2009

When Barack Obama takes office as president, he should immediately change or even scrap many cold-war-era regulations on high-tech exports and on immigration by foreign scientists and engineers, an expert panel said Thursday.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser, was on a panel that criticized immigration restrictions on scientists.

Restricting foreigners’ access to strategically important technology might have been useful decades ago, when the United States was the undisputed world leader across the technological spectrum, the panel said in a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences. But today, it said, the nation is losing scientific and engineering dominance even as militarily useful advances come increasingly from civilian research.
The regulations do little for the nation’s security, the panel said, while significantly hampering economic growth and innovation."

&

"But Baker Spring, a national security analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, said that while there might be merit in some immediate changes, anything that could be done quickly “is almost certain to be incomplete.”

Mr. Spring, who said he had not read the report, said he favored a country-by-country approach because policies appropriate for “close allies” like Britain or Australia might not be appropriate for countries like China.

Among other things, the panel said the president should do the following:

¶Restructure the export-control process to advance economic competitiveness as well as national security, allowing “openness and engagement to prevail unless a compelling case can be made for restrictions” which, in turn, must have “a rational basis.”

¶Require controls to be reassessed at least yearly.

¶Establish two independent panels within the National Security Council to assess controls and decide disputes about export limits.

¶Streamline the visa process for scientists and engineers and automatically allow foreign students to remain in the country at least a year after earning advanced degrees in scientific or technical fields.

¶Allow American experts to vouch for “well-known scholars and researchers” seeking to enter the United States."