February 15, 2022
Biden Can Find Middle Ground in Heated Nuclear Debate
U.S. President Joe Biden is faced with competing pressures as his administration prepares to announce the results of the latest Nuclear Posture Review. The administration; the niche, but important, arms control community in Washington; and foreign allies have been hotly debating whether Washington should adopt a policy pledging that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis (a preemptive attack or first strike), referred to as a “no first use” policy, and that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against America and its allies, referred to as a “sole purpose” policy. Both sides fiercely argue their viewpoint—but a middle way is possible.
Declaring a no-first-use policy would inevitably be accompanied by making changes to U.S. force posture and structure, including increasing the time and steps it takes to launch a nuclear weapon.
In January 2017, then-Vice President Biden articulated his long-held belief that the United States does not need to use nuclear weapons first. It mirrored then-President Barack Obama’s convictions about reducing the role of nuclear weapons and America’s “moral responsibility … to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” It also reflected a reduction in Washington’s perceived need to retain the first-use option against non-nuclear attacks since the end of the Cold War. During his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden pledged to push for a no-first-use policy, with his website stating, “As president, he will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with our allies and military.”
Biden is being pressed to make good on his campaign commitment by Democratic leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Adam Smith, who reintroduced the No First Use Bill in April 2021 and signed on to a letter delivered to the president on Jan. 26, and he is also facing pressure from some experts in the nongovernmental arms control community.
Read the full article from Foreign Policy.
More from CNAS
-
Commentary
Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
What It Takes to Stop the Next Salt TyphoonThis article was originally published on Just Security.Nearly a year after U.S. agencies identified one of the most severe cyber breaches of U.S. telecommunications companies,...
By Morgan Peirce
-
Global Swing States and the New Great Power Competition
Commentary
The United States should prioritize these six countries in their foreign policy, encouraging swing state governments to choose policies that reflect the core principles of int...
By Richard Fontaine & Gibbs McKinley
-
The Pentagon’s AUKUS Review is an Opportunity — If Done Right
Commentary
The reality is that U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and Taiwan has starkly highlighted for policymakers the real limits of the U.S. industrial base to meet demand across a...
By Jennifer Hendrixson White
-
Video
Indo-Pacific Security / Energy, Economics & Security
75 Years Post-Korean War: Can Trust Be Rebuilt Under the New Administration?As President Lee Jae Myung begins his term, he's taking visible steps to reset the tone with North Korea: halting propaganda broadcasts and reemphasizing past military agreeme...
By Dr. Go Myong-Hyun
