After being continually accused of lacking a sound mind and temperament for handing the nuclear weapons in critical situations months prior to the US presidential elections of November 2016, the Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump stated “I will be the last person on the globe when it comes to using nukes.” The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) – 2018, the official document prepared by the Pentagon explaining the role of nuclear weapons for the security of the United States for the next eight years, depicts otherwise. The top defense document outlines a hawkish approach of the incumbent US administration while resolving the outstanding issues with its adversaries besides being in utter contradiction with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and dishonors various disarmament campaigns under the patronage of the United Nations. The US nuclear planners have devised an extremely aggressive policy for dealing with two major powers, one Middle Eastern state and an impoverished North East Asian country in absolute disregard to their concerns. The entire nuclear document is bereft of describing a threshold for the use of nuclear weapons; rather the phrase “extreme circumstance” has been used without describing its qualifying criteria. Deterrence has been explicated as the prime objective of the US nuclear weapons program but the document also encapsulates destruction. The United States’ complete refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and calling the newly opened Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty (NWBT), “unrealistic” speaks volumes of her non-serious attitude towards disarmament responsibilities it possesses as the super power. Its focus on modernizing the nuclear arsenal will not only initiate a new arms race with its rivals but head off the prospects of extension/renewal of existing arms control agreements. The new US nuclear policy validates the fears expressed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists of calibrating the “so-called Doomsday Clock” at two minutes and thirty seconds before midnight – the time that represents the earth’s perdition after nuclear events.
Besides defining the four key threats, the US policy on non-proliferation and arms control under NPT, CTBT and NWBT not only seems ineffective but will produce results in juxtaposition to the desired ones. Broadly encompassing, the US NPR-2018 can be segregated as:
(1) Russia – the prime mover behind the US nuclear policy
(2) China – a growing technological nuclear power
(3) Iran – enjoying a lucrative deal under JCPOA
(4) North Korea – aims to hit US mainland very soon
(5) NPT – strengthening in an unconscionable manner
(6) CTBT and NWBT – Need a sine qua non US cover for disarmament
(1) Russia – the prime mover behind US nuclear policy
The United States pinpoints Russia of significant advances in its military capabilities and hegemonic intentions after the NPR-2010. The US calls the current era as “Great Power Competition” which demands progression from the US also in the overall nuclear capabilities in accordance with the theory of existential deterrence. A separate strategy for dealing with Russia has been outlined by declining the concept of “one size fits all.”
While formulating policy against Russia the US military planners have considered the following major parameters:
(a) Russia’s decades-old concept of de-escalation;
(b) Russia’s occupation of Crimea and support to its forces in the Ukraine; and
(b) Violation of Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, INF, of I987 and 2002 Open Skies Treaty
The Russian nuclear principle of Nuclear First Strike for demonstrative purposes in unpopulated areas or anywhere else which could de-escalate tensions by bringing down its rival to its knees under the concept of “De-escalation” has been replied in a severe possible manner. The US nuclear policy hovers around deterring any such attack by Russia and responding to the Nuclear First strike under this Russian concept. The tailored strategy for Russia aims at imparting a sense of unbearable consequences in the minds of Russian strategists before they opt their ludicrous concept of “limited escalation to de-escalate.” The US announces enhancement of its battlefield nuclear weapons in a tit-for-tat response to Russia in order to heighten the threshold for nuclear first strike by Russia.
Russia’s development and deployment of new nuclear warheads and launchers solidify the existing state of its nuclear triad thereby driving the US to counter such advances. The modernization and expansion of non-strategic nuclear weapons in the Russian nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile defense programs draw immediate attention in the US nuclear policy guideline. The US upbraids these developments in the light of INF and Open Skies. These Russian initiatives coupled with annexure of Crimea signify intentions of Russian Federation to emulate the US as a great power and form the basis for modernization of the US nuclear arsenal envisaged in the NPR-2018.
The US being the sole super-power should start long-awaited implementation on the Article VI of the NPT by initiating negotiations among the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) for cessation of nuclear arms for a world free of nuclear weapons. Any progress either in the form of up-gradation or expansion, as envisaged in the NPR-2018, in nuclear arsenal is antithetical to the Article VI of the NPT of which the US is signatory as an NWS. The announced nuclear strategy under NPR-2018 would only exacerbate the already worsened state of affairs between the US and Russia thereby scaling up the probability of miscalculation and misperception. Besides an era of arms race like that of the Cold War period between the US and Russia will spin off very soon.
(2) China – a growing technological nuclear power
The NPR-2018 underlines that Asian giant China owing to its intransigence in the South China Sea where it claims more than 80% of sea territory, refuses to accept the July 2016 verdict of the International Court of Justice, thus giving impetus to the race of Great Powers. China’s potential to hit the US territory through its ICBMs and its cyber and space capacities have been recognized as threatening for the US and need to be addressed properly.
It seems that China has unnecessarily been encompassed in the NPR-2018 and emulated with Russia against the US. Unlike Russia, neither China is the arch-rival of the US nor does it pose a direct threat to US interests in the region. In fact China is the only nation out of 5 de jure and 4 de facto states (9 in toto) pledging “No First Use of Nuclear weapons.” Any US policy against China refers to bidirectional objectives: maintaining a strong US-Japan-South Korea alliance in the North East Asia against China and countervailing the growing Chinese influence through India. The United States preparedness against China, under NPR-2018, will only make matters worse in the upcoming days and inhibit progress and resolution of issues through diplomacy.
(3) Iran – enjoying a lucrative deal under JCPOA
The NPR-2018 expresses suspicion over the existing state of Iranian nuclear facilities under the JCPOA: Iran may acquire the nuclear weapon within a year soon after its decision to do so. The inexorable development of ballistic missiles coupled with threatening statements of Iran’s Supreme leader against the US ruffles the feathers of United States.
US president Donald Trump has called time and again the Iranian deal as being the worst deal ever signed by US governments and he pledged tearing it up if elected President, during his election campaign, thereby sharing the stance of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Trump administration’s NPR takes a extreme stance on Iran by describing it as a rogue state willing to use nuclear weapons after possession. The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran has been assumed as an easy task: the current IAEA safeguards will never allow Iran to enrich its uranium to weapon-grade level (93%). Scrapping the Iran’s nuclear deal will not only have a horrendous fallout but the post-scrap conditions will cause unprecedented turbulence in the Middle East.
Consider for a while that President Trump withdraws the US from the deal and imposes sanctions on Iran in multiple sectors like in the past. Consequently, Iran is going to expel the IAEA inspectors and start enriching uranium, this will irk both the US and Israel and the latter will try to convince the US of preventive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities under the eponymous Begin Doctrine keeping in view similar attacks on Iran’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Al-Kibar reactor in Syria in 2007. President Bush did not allow Israel to attack Iran after being convinced by his Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2007 and President Obama opted for agreement with Iran rather than submitting himself before Netanyahu’s demands. Here lies the most dangerous scenario: neither any cabinet member in the incumbent US administration possesses requisite duende to dissuade Donald Trump from allowing preventive strikes on Iranian nuclear targets nor is Donald Trump expected to resolve the issue in a sane manner. Surely, the hot-headed Trump will succumb to the dream of hawkish Netanyahu. If Iranian nuclear facilities are attacked Iran will respond by attacking US bases which are spread in nooks and corners of the Middle East. Therefore, a multi-directional war in the already war-ravaged Middle East, involving the other major powers also, will commence putting the lives of thousands of people at stake.
President Trump must abandon the idea of scrapping the nuclear deal with Iran and give smooth sailing to the JCPOA, a lengthy-negotiated nuclear agreement, allowing Iran its inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Article IV of the NPT. He must also realize that the US is not the only party involved in the agreement besides five other major world powers. A US retract from the agreement will not only incense the other parties but it will also eliminate chances of dealing diplomatically with North Korea’s nuclear issue.
(4) North Korea – Aims to hit US mainland
The aggressive nuclear policy of North Korea, a pariah nuclear North East Asian State, has been described as a significant threat to the US and its allies. The non-linear expansion of North Korean nuclear program, under the third generation Kim, evinced by successful nuclear explosions and ballistic missile testing enrages the US. Besides this, the NPR-2018 raises concerns over the suspected proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea thereby perturbing the non-proliferation regime. The US announces investment in missile defense programs and technological advancements besides joint military exercises in the Asia-Pacific enabling it to counter the threat posed by the puny North East Asian State.
The Trump administration seems extremely disinclined on resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis in an amicable manner. President Trump with his condescending and debasing statements has pushed the Korean peninsula at the cusp of war. Since his arrival in the White House not a single statement has been heard about resolving this issue diplomatically or with any seriousness. Rather in the UN General Assembly Session last year he expressed his idea of totally destroying North Korea. His infamous statement of being faced with “such fire and fury the world has never witnessed before” speaks volumes of his bull-headedness against North Korea. Such vitriolic statements define the personality of Donald Trump as that of a coxcomb on a hair-trigger alert for waging war against North Korea.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has not lagged behind in using truculent language against the US. From his speeches it seems that attacking the US mainland through an ICBM is his avowed intent and has amped up missile testing during the last three years besides exploding high yield fifth and sixth nuclear explosions. Kim Jong Un considers the possession of nuclear weapons as the only means of survival for his regime, he also believes that if Saddam Hussain and Colonel Qaddafi had possessed these weapons they would have been ruling their countries till their natural demise. Thus Kim posits a unique danger: nuclear weapons are considered to be used as a last resort but Kim will either start using them or reply by nuclear weapons after inception of war.
The announced US policy is denuded of resolving the nuclear issue with North Korea. Rather the investment in ballistic missile defense shields and joint military exercises will make Kim and China more apoplectic. China has expressed reservations in installation ballistic missile defense shield (THAAD) in South Korea as much of China’s territory will be under the US’ radars after their installation. Whereas, the North Korea leader Kim Jong Un considers the joint military exercises of US with South Korea “the act of war against North Korea” and has always responded in strong language against the US and its allies during the exercise-period. The US nuclear policy for the next eight years maintains the major irritants are China and North Korea thereby brushing away prospects for resolving the issues diplomatically.
In the ongoing situation any thaw between the US and North Korea seems an elusive dream. The North Koreans have been waiting for responding to US and its allies and will not denuclearize their country on any terms keeping in view the existing US strategy. Therefore the US aim for a denuclearized peninsula, in the current scenario, can be called as a farce. The US must realize that North Korea needs security guarantees like the Extended Deterrence of the US to 30 states or “Negative and Positive Security Assurances” if it surrendered nuclear weapons. The current security milieu conveys only threat and destruction to the North Koreans. Even China, the life blood of North Korea, has also reined in its support on certain matters to the impecunious state leaving it high and dry. The US strategists should have crafted a strategy for dealing with North Korea’s nuclear issue diplomatically as it did by resolving the Iran’s nuclear crisis. A Group-5 should have been envisaged in the NPR encompassing the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea for conducting negotiations with the reclusive state. It’s apodictic that Kim cannot continue his regime for decades by starving his own populace and ultimately he will have to succumb. The current US nuclear policy paves the way for the proposed Bloody Nose Strikes on North Korean targets but it must be remembered that South Korea, the prime US ally at a stone’s throw away from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) from the North Korean side, will have to bear grave consequences leaving behind carcasses, ashes and rubble only.
(5) NPT–Strengthening in an unconscionable manner
The US NPR-2018 calls the NPT as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime and expresses US commitments for strengthening the NPT regime besides abiding by its obligations. The document also extends support for the supplier regimes i.e. Zangger Committee and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). In continuation of its stance on Iran and North Korea, the US defines both the countries as threats to non-proliferation regime.
The US’ discriminatory role in the NPT can be spelled out in terms of the major outlier from NPT: India – a non-signatory to NPT but enjoys full status of a Nuclear Weapon State under the patronage of the US. The US-India Nuclear Deal under the Bush administration reveals the US as not only the biggest violator of international regimes but a supporter of arms race between two South Asian arch-rivals. Adding insult to the injury of the NPT, the 45-member endorsement of the agreement by the NSG, at that time, and the US’s continual covert and overt support for India’s inclusion in NSG till to-date define the pinnacle of the US’ partiality as a NWS.
Para 3 Article IX of the NPT declares the five permanent members of the Security Council i.e. the US, the USSR subsequent Russia, the UK, France and China as the Nuclear Weapon States owing to their manufacturing and explosion of nuclear weapons before 1st January 1967. All the remaining countries were declared Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) besides leaving behind a vacuum for those states exploding such a weapon after the cut-off date. Israel, a possessor of nuclear weapons and a non-signatory to NPT, maintains its policy of nuclear opacity whereas India and Pakistan overtly detonated the nuclear weapons well after the NWS cut-off date. The UN Security Council Resolution 1172 besides condemning the nuclear tests refuses to recognize the status of both India and Pakistan as that of NWS owing to its commitments with the NPT.
Nuclear Commerce under NSG, an elite group of 48-nations, permits nuclear trade for peaceful purposes only and is specific to NNWS whose all facilities are under IAEA safeguards. How can a state like India with undecided status be a member of the NSG? India enjoys the Voluntary Offer Agreement (VOA) with the IAEA like that of the NWSs with only selected nuclear sites under IAEA safeguards. The special NSG waivers to India at the behest of the US in its current undecided state are a matter of concern to the integrity and honor of non-proliferation regimes. Therefore the US being a responsible NWS must rein in its support for India’s efforts of joining the NSG. The US commitments to nuclear proliferation may be accomplished only when it compels India to abandon its nuclear weapons program, sign the additional protocol of IAEA under INFCIRC/540 and join the NPT as an NNWS. Consequently it will pose considerable pressure on Pakistan to follow suit, which it will, thereby eventuating a Nuclear Weapons Free South Asian Region (NWFSAR). Practically, the task seems like getting blood out of a turnip but it will be a major break-through towards the ongoing disarmament campaigns and only the US is in such a position to do so if it so desires.
On the other hand if it continues the status quo by lobbying for India in the NSG, it will be counter-productive and solidify the ongoing arms race in the region between India and Pakistan with whom the US’ relation have taken a nosedive during the Trump administration. Additionally, inclusion of India in the NSG will be a humiliation for various international bodies and treaties prominent among them being the UN Security Council (UNSC), the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NSG itself.
(6) CTBT & NWBT – need a sine qua none US cover for disarmament
The NPR-2018 not only conveys the US’s outright refusal for ratification of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) but it’s criticism on the newfangled treaty for signature i.e. Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty (NWBT). The US terms the NWBT as detrimental to its national security interests besides calling the existing global security environment “inappropriate” for nuclear disarmament.
It would not be unfair to equate NPT with CTBT and NWBT: if NPT is the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation, the CTBT and NWBT, if enforced, will be the foundation of nuclear disarmament. CTBT, a treaty banning all nuclear explosions, awaits the US’s ratification for more than two decades. The US signed the treaty soon after its opening in September 1996 during the Clinton administration but when it came to ratifying the treaty all successive US administrations refuted to proceed further. Interestingly Russia, the arch-rival of the US and the driving force behind its nuclear policy, had signed and ratified the treaty long ago, leaving behind no rationale for the US to oppose. If the US ratifies the long-awaiting CTBT it will be the biggest step forward towards nuclear disarmament besides putting enormous pressure on India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt and North Korea for agreeing upon the postulates of this treaty. The US’ obduracy gives margin to the six stated states thereby not only hampering the essence but precluding the implementation of CTBT.
Similarly the newly-introduced NWBT prohibits developing, testing, producing, possession, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The US’s dismissal of such a prolific treaty depicts its non-seriousness in different disarmament campaigns introduced under the auspices of UN General Assembly. Its excuse of infeasible security milieu does not carry conviction: the security environment all over the world is controlled by the US as its presence is perspicuous almost all across the globe. The major powers like Russia and China can only assert their influence adjacent to their territories, like the possession of South China Sea and annexure of Crimea by China and Russia respectively. But the US situated on the North-western part of the globe possesses prodigious influence on two countries located on its exactly opposite South-eastern side: Australia and New Zealand. Similarly, its military bases in the entire Middle Eastern region, European NATO countries, two important North East Asian states Japan and South Korea, its military leadership of NATO and a sequacious 42-nation Muslim military alliance under the stewardship of Saudi Arabia and last but not least its docile and dovish neighborhood has put the US in the strongest geopolitical position ever enjoyed by any super power in centuries-old history of the world. So why is the US afraid of ratifying and signing the NBWT? The US planners must keep in mind that no other country would get benefit more than the US if a nuclear free world is established owing to its superior conventional fire power. The US outdistances the entire world in the conventional military technology and if the major powers fight with the US with conventional capabilities only, it would be lose-lose outcome that will go in favor of the US.
