Tag: Nuclear weapons
Stevenson’s army, January 18
– WSJ says US is investigating a Chinese investment in a startup aircraft company.
– NYT says Russia has been withdrawing staff from its Kyiv embassy.
– Houthis have attacked UAE. An analysis. And another analysis.
– AP says Taiwan has paid Guatemala to lobby US for it.
– The Hill has a background piece on Wendy Sherman’s negotiations. In the Conduct course, I assign a chapter from her memoir on how she ran her team in the Iran nuclear negotiations. Excellent statecraft.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 4
In the good old 20th century, when a heavy snowstorm hit, the federal government announced a “liberal leave” policy. Now they call it “unscheduled leave.” As I interpreted the old language, only liberals could stay home. Everybody else had to work.
Nearly 94 years ago, most nations agreed to the Kellogg-Briand pact, outlawing war as an instrument of national policy. Notwithstanding the [in]effectiveness of that agreement, five major nuclear powers this week declared that nuclear wars can never be won and should not be fought. Good luck.
The newly empowered National Cyber Director is hiring 75 staff.
WSJ reports Russia & China are cooperating militarily.
Defense contractors are bankrolling lawmakers who opposed certifying Biden’s victory.
So, yes, it’s time for another piece surveying research on collapsing democracies.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 19
– The new NDAA forbids dishonorable discharges for military personnel who refuse to get vaccinations.
– 3 retired general warn of insurrection in 2024.
-Some Israeli officials doubt ability to strike Iran.
– Major NYT review of airstrike investigations finds undercounts of civilian casualties and reluctance to blame US.
– WaPo says US greatly expanded air attacks in Afghanistan in mid-2021.
From the entrepreneurial NatSecDaily:
FIRST IN NATSEC DAILY — AMERICANS WARY OF GOING TO WAR OVER UKRAINE: A new YouGov poll commissioned by the pro-restraint Charles Koch Institute found that there are more Americans skeptical of going to war with Russia than those who are gung-ho.
In response to the question “If Ukraine is invaded again by Russia, do you favor or oppose the US going to war with Russia to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity?” 28 percent of respondents said they “strongly oppose” the idea while another 20 percent said they “somewhat oppose” it. By contrast, only 9 percent said they “strongly favor” going to war with Russia and 18 percent said they “somewhat favor” the notion. Meanwhile, 24 percent of the 1,000 internet-using Americans surveyed said they “don’t know.”
That’s not an outright repudiation of the idea of going to war to defend Ukraine from Moscow’s forces, but this one poll indicates a majority of people are at least skeptical.
Importantly, Biden to date has ruled out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians, were they to invade.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 17
– AIPAC will launch its first campaign donation arm.-
– Remember, NDAA doesn’t provide money. Appropriations needed.
-David Ignatius urges use of IAEA to pressure Iran.
– Revolutionary Guard budget to more than double.
– Russia has a negotiation package.
Good reads: Reimagining Arms Control. Prof Brands says US is preparing for wrong war with China.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 12
– NYT says US & Israel sharply divided over Iran.
– CNN reports new WH rules on reporting cyber attacks.
– Cook Political Report writer says GOP has already gained 10-15 House seats through gerrymandering.
– WaPo reminds how GOP snubbed Bob Dole.
– Military.com says Japanese learned how to attack Pearl Harbor by watching US exercises.
Some more from Charlie, under the heading threats to democracy:
– WaPo & NYT have several articles on the issue. Thomas Edsall surveyed political scientists and reports their analyses.
– A former GOP official says the right wing is already mobilizing.
– Kevin Drum explains why GOP believes Trump won.
-WSJ says redistricting is eliminating swing districts.
– G7 issued a warning to Russia on Ukraine.
– NYT has more on the secret US unit in Syria which was “reckless” in targeting.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Getting back to the nuclear deal is the best option, the sooner the better
Iran is arguably already a threshold nuclear state. American withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka Iran nuclear deal) in 2018 has allowed Tehran to enrich uranium to 20%, develop more advanced centrifuges, and likely make other technological process. It is now well within one year of being able to fabricate a nuclear weapon. What difference does that make?
Not much, yet. Possession of nuclear weapons is not a major factor in today’s geopolitics, because they are unusable. As Richard Burt put it a decade ago:
The currency of power has changed from [nuclear] military power to economic, technological competitiveness.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1230/the-new-geopolitics-why-nuclear-weapons-no-longer-serve-us-interests
Israel’s growing power in the Middle East is not due to its nuclear weapons, which represent a guarantee of its existence rather than a means of projecting power. Arab states are now cozying up to Israel because of its economic and technological prowess, built on top of its military strength. Nuclear weapons have given Pakistan a means of deterring a conventional Indian invasion but have not made Pakistan India’s equal even within South Asia. India is by far the greater economic and technological power. Russia’s resurgence as a great power is not based on its nuclear weapons, which Moscow possessed in the 1990s when it was an economic basket case, but rather on its economic recovery and willingness to project conventional military force into Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria as well as hybrid warfare in the Balkans, Belarus, and elsewhere.
Nuclear weapons are still important for deterrence, but they do little more than guarantee mutual destruction.
So what’s wrong with Iran getting nuclear weapons, or the technology to make and deliver them within a few months time? The answer lies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, not in Israel. Iran becoming a threshold nuclear state will inspire, if it has not already, its regional rivals to do likewise. Both President Erdogan and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have both said as much. I’d guess Turkey is technologically capable on its own. Saudi Arabia may need to buy experts and technology abroad, but it is capable of doing so. Once four countries in the Middle East go nuclear, the risks of intentional or accidental nuclear warfare rise exponentially.
Bilateral deterrence works reasonably well, judging by experience not only with the Soviet Union/Russia and the United States but also with India and Pakistan, India and China, as well as China and the US. Multilateral deterrence poses much more complex issues, especially with countries that lack second strike capabilities and are geographically proximate. Preparation for launch of Iranian missiles that might (or might not) carry nuclear weapons could trigger responses not only from Israel, which in its submarines has second strike capability, but also from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, depending on the crisis du jour. Miscalculation is a key factor in war. The odds of a mistake are much higher the more countries are involved.
The question remains: can the world manage with Iran as a nuclear-threshold or even a nuclear country? The answer is yes, at least for a while, but that circumstance will not be in Iran’s favor. If it fails to negotiate a return to the JCPOA, the US will tighten its economic sanctions and apply them with more vigor. Israel will continue its “dirty war” of cyber attacks and assassinations of Iranian scientists. Europe and the UK will go along with the Americans, as their financial institutions and companies have too much to lose by displeasing Washington. Moscow won’t want Iran to go nuclear, but its companies may well be prepared to surreptiously help Tehran evade sanctions. Beijing may do likewise, as it has much to gain from acquiring Iranian oil at sanctions-induced relatively cheap prices.
The negotiations on return to the JCPOA adjourned Friday without progress and bitter words from both Washington and Tehran. Failure of the negotiations, whose aim is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state, will thus aggravate East/West tensions and vastly complicate US relations with both Russia and China, which won’t take kindly to the tightening of sanctions. Iran’s economy, already well on the way to ruin, will deteriorate further. Israel will find its dirty war progressively more difficult and less effective as the Iranians learn how to counter it. Washington will want try to restrain Ankara and Riyadh from acquiring all the technology needed for nuclear weapons but will find it increasingly difficult to do so.
Getting back to the nuclear deal is the best option. The sooner the better.
RSS - Posts
