COLUMN: Rethinking the nuclear option

Ah, the Cold War … a simpler time when it was “us” versus “them” and everyone knew who “them” was.

Though the Cold War ended almost ten years ago, the question of how to handle our nuclear stockpile remains.

During the Reagan years, the United States increased its nuclear stockpile in response to an increasingly militaristic Soviet Union. This was a time when there remained a real possibility of using our nukes to turn a country into a parking lot and sending the Marines in to paint the lines.

With Glasnost and the collapse of the Soviet Union, tensions eased and our nuclear stockpile was drastically reduced.

But after the terrorist attacks of 2001, President Bush called for greater flexibility in determining the circumstances under which a nuclear response would be acceptable. Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria were among those identified as rogue states which could present “unexpected contingencies.”

In short, Bush believed weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists were the greatest threat facing the country and wanted all options on the table. As he once said, perhaps somewhat ineloquently, “Today we are not so sure who the ‘they’ are, but we know they're there."

But that was then – the world is a happier, rosier place now and we no longer need to worry if “they” have nuclear weapons, right?

President Obama must believe so. In his revision of American nuclear policy, Obama is expected to reduce our nuclear stockpiles and pledge not to develop any new systems. Analysts also expect that the President will reject the nuclear policy which would have allowed an attack on a non-nuclear state. He is also expected to rule out the use of nuclear weapons if United States forces are attacked with biological and chemical weapons.

Why take those options off the table? Having a nuclear arsenal is all about deterrence. If we tell the bad guys we do not intend to use our weapons unless they nuke us first, then how is that a deterrent?

Furthermore, there is a possibility that Obama will opt for a policy which specifies the United States will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. No preemptive strike, we’ll just sit back and take it on the chin I suppose.

Obama’s policy revision comes as no surprise. Last year in Prague, he expressed his wish for “a world without nuclear weapons.”

Well, I suppose we all wish for that, but that boat has already sailed. The thought of a nuclear strike on U.S. soil is terrifying. The thought of a strike anywhere is terrifying. But, let’s be realistic – nuclear weapons exist. In addition to the nine known countries with nuclear weapons, you have countries such as Iran that would like nothing better than to develop a nuclear arsenal of their own.

Without a doubt, there would be no winners in a nuclear war. The only victory to be had is avoiding one in the first place. The only way to do that is to keep doing what we have done for the past 65 years. For as long as nuclear weapons exist, we must have a nuclear arsenal and our enemies must believe we will deploy our weapons as needed.

Hopefully, the world’s nuclear powers can continue to reduce their stockpiles. Hopefully, we can keep rogue states and terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. Hopefully, we can account for all missing weapons grade material. Hopefully, one day the world will be free of a nuclear threat.

Until that day comes, the best defense remains a strong offense.

Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. She can be reached at kreed@barrowjournal.com.