Steve Andreasen: Bold vision needed to counter nuclear threat
02/14/2007
Ratifying the Test Ban Treaty and securing nuclear weapons are two of the actions that can be taken to improve global security.Steve Andreasen
Published: February 14, 2007
During my first job in the State Department 20 years ago, I was assigned to State's "Continuity of Government" team. The "COG" program was designed then to ensure that our government could function during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union involving thousands of nuclear warheads detonating in both countries.
The good news for the men and women who are seeking the presidency today is that the danger of a nuclear war on that scale has largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War. The bad news is that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is as high as it has been at any time in the past 20 years.
How can that be? First, there are more states with nuclear weapons now, and no guarantee that nuclear deterrence -- which helped keep the peace between America and Soviet Russia for 50 years -- will work in a world with multiple nuclear-weapon states. Second, the risk of nuclear terrorism is real, and increasing -- exacerbated by the spread of nuclear technology and illegal supplier networks. Moreover, terrorists are unlikely to be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation by the United States or any other nation.
Third, the growing interest in nuclear energy has the potential to spread facilities for producing enriched uranium around the world. This could be a boon to both terrorists and rogue states that are seeking nuclear weapons (since these enrichment facilities can produce fuel for both civilian nuclear reactors and bombs).
Finally, there is still a residual and potentially deadly nuclear threat between the United States and Russia: Both countries still deploy thousands of nuclear warheads on hundreds of ballistic missiles that can be launched and hit their targets in 60 minutes -- a "hair-trigger" posture that increases the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a nuclear missile.
In some ways, the issue of nuclear weapons today resembles the issue of Al-Qaida in the 1990s. Throughout the Clinton administration, Al-Qaida was recognized as a real and growing threat, but the political and policy focus necessary to deal decisively with the problem never crystallized.
The same is true today regarding nuclear weapons; the threat has been recognized (both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry stated that the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism was the most dangerous threat to our nation during the 2004 campaign), but the political and policy focus necessary to deal decisively and comprehensively with the problem has not yet materialized.
Fortunately, a new consensus may be building on both the nature of the nuclear threat, and what needs to be done to deal with it. In January, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed article signed by former secretaries of state George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Sen. Sam Nunn and 17 others (of whom I am one). The authors state that we are on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era; and that while a number of steps are being taken today to reduce nuclear dangers, "By themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger."
The conclusion reached by this bipartisan group is that in order to deal effectively with this problem, the United States and other nations must embrace both the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and pursue a balanced program of practical measures toward achieving that goal. In short: "Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible."
For example, the United States and Russia should move immediately to change the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons. This could be done by removing nuclear warheads from ballistic missiles, which would relieve pressure on the "hair trigger" and reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized missile launch. Nuclear forces should also be reduced substantially in all states that possess them; and we should eliminate short-range "tactical" nuclear weapons (the bombs most likely to be targeted for theft by terrorists). Achieving ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- in the United States and in other key states; securing nuclear weapons and materials around the world; getting control of the uranium enrichment process; and halting the production of fissile material for weapons are all steps that can and should be taken to improve global security.
Accomplishing these actions will not be easy. It will require an unprecedented degree of international cooperation, including progress on resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that breed nuclear weapons programs. Most important, it will require leadership from our next president because, in the absence of U.S. leadership, we will continue to drift toward the day when we will inevitably have to deal again with the consequences of nuclear use. That is something we should all keep in mind as we consider our next occupant of the White House.
Steve Andreasen, director for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council from 1993 to 2001, teaches at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.