For governments that mistrust US intentions, Barack Obama’s new restraints on nuclear weapons hold little comfort in a world where “pilots” wielding joysticks as far away as Colorado launch deadly missiles from drones flying 24/7 over Pakistan’s badlands.
Almost no government, not even allies like Britain, Germany and France, fully trust American intentions. Of course, nobody expects the US to use military force of any kind against friends and others that do not harm its citizens. But none doubt that the US will severely punish any country that allows its territory to be used for large scale terrorist strikes against the homeland.
Whatever Obama says at the forthcoming nuclear summits, few would trust that pushed to the wall a future US administration will never retaliate with limited-impact tactical nuclear weapons or similarly devastating conventional weapons.
Obama touches everyone’s heart when he talks of trying to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world or one where nuclear weapons are obsolete. But few brains accept that this ideal can ever be reality, given the overwhelming quantity of conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction already in American hands.
Obama’s pleasing words look like a velvet glove over very harsh steel fists when seen in combination with America’s global military reach, so convincingly demonstrated over the past 20 years in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Today the US military is present in all world regions complete with bases, materiel and command and control hubs.
North Korea and Iran are the current outliers. They may succumb to diplomacy and US military intimidation but others will surely take their place 20 years from now. The major international meetings on nuclear security that Obama is sponsoring in April and May are billed as conclaves to work together to increase safety for all of us. But world leaders, especially from countries formerly dominated by Western powers, are no longer as weak as in the past. They will attend those meetings but their goal will be to advance their own national security.
No government wants a rain of American bombs on its citizens because terrorists used its territory to train for attacks on the US homeland, whether or not using dirty nuclear or chemical weapons. So the issue for most foreign governments outside the American NATO alliance is ensuring enough deterrence against US military actions on its sovereign territory. The probability may be tiny but insurance policies are for such unlikely happenings.
Obama’s declaration of a limited first strike strategy, or even a no first strike doctrine, will not sufficiently reassure other nations. Only the complete and verifiable abandonment of nuclear weapons by America and other nuclear powers might provide that reassurance. But that is impossible because nobody expects the US to give up its nuclear arsenal entirely. Even if it dismantles all current weapons the ability to build new ones within days will remain.
Countries that do not like America’s ideology of human rights and democracy, which are many for the moment, will continue to feel unsafe. Those who can build nuclear deterrents will continue covertly and others will do whatever else is within their capabilities. Unless, of course, the US can convincingly become every nation’s long-lasting friend. That is as impractical as a nuclear weapons-free world.
Whatever the diplomatic rhetoric during the next few weeks, everybody knows that Obama’s top priority is to keep the American people safe. All leaders have similar priorities to keep their own people safe. Everyone knows that Obama’s successors might not be such thoughtful guys. So, few are likely to stop accumulating whatever they see as the right means of deterring US military power.
Some like Iran and North Korea are developing sufficient small nuclear weapons and short to medium range missiles to severely harm a nearby US ally. America’s revenge might bring obliteration but the likelihood of a US ally being annihilated might deter the US from rattling sabers in the first place.
In current circumstances, Obama’s nuclear diplomacy might bring some temporary image-building benefits for him but is unlikely to do much for the ideal of global nuclear disarmament.