Hagel's No-Nukes "Global Zero"

They Cheat, We Don't

by Peter Huessy
January 9, 2013 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3535/hagel-no-nukes-global-zero

Generally it means that even the severely reduced number of warheads deployed in our arsenal would not -- if they were needed in a crisis -- be available for use. If that in fact took place -- with countries hostile to the US having arsenals in excess of the US force -- it would probably be in irresistible invitation to them to attack.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, nominated to be Secretary of Defense, is also a signatory of what is known as the "Global Zero" plan. It calls for the United States and Russia to begin comprehensive nuclear arms negotiations in early 2013 to achieve zero nuclear weapons worldwide by 2030 in four phases.

The first phase would be a reduction of the US nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons from its current level -- some number slightly less than 5,000 warheads. While the US has now deployed 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons, the new total would include stored and reserve weapons, as well as warheads considered tactical and deployed in Europe, and therefore not regulated by current arms control agreements. By way of comparison, the former head of the US Strategic Command laid out in a summer 2012 essay the comparable Russian arsenal, which he estimated was probably in excess of 10,000 nuclear warheads -- a number considerably higher than many current and previous estimates of the Russian nuclear arsenal, and nearly twice that of the United States.

The Global Zero plan first would remove all US tactical nuclear weapons from US combat bases in Europe to storage facilities in the United States. However, while these tactical US weapons would no longer be able to defend Europe and NATO, Russians weapons would be able to attack all of Europe in a relatively short time -- launching weapons from bases in Russia, where they would be stored, reconstituted and redeployed. Given the nature of such weapons systems, the verification of such efforts would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The real eye-opener is that the 1,000 ceiling for the US would include our tactical nuclear weapons and stored weapons for reserve emergencies, and the currently deployed 1,550 weapons. The implication is that Hagel is pushing an 80% cut in overall US deployed weapons. If done proportionately, that would involve a reduction to fewer than roughly 300 total deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a level less than China, and less than India and Pakistan combined.

This further signals the elimination of the US strategic nuclear Triad (air, sea and land) -- 300 accountable warheads would enable the deployment of a limited bomber or submarine or IBM leg of our nuclear deterrent, but certainly not all three legs. This would have the effect, by virtually eliminating all serious deterrent capability to our adversaries, of massively increasing the instability of the international security environment -- a dramatic reversal of the promises made within the New START Treaty ratification process, in which enhancing and maintaining strategic stability was one of the cornerstones of the US Nuclear Posture Review.

By quickly withdrawing our tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, we would be emasculating the extended deterrent umbrella which now covers Europe, and as a result seriously weaken the defense ties to our allies and friends across the Atlantic. There would also be a corresponding weakening of our deterrent umbrella over the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, just at a time when these three nations, and others, are threatened by an expanding North Korean missile and nuclear weapons capability and a major modernization program by China of its nuclear weapons. The result, based on reasonable mid-point estimates of the current PRC arsenal, would be a Chinese deployed nuclear arsenal in excess of that deployed by the United States, to say nothing of what Peking could deploy in the near and intermediate future.

The Global Zero plan also calls for "de-alerting" our nuclear weapons. That would mean any number of things, but generally it means even the severely reduced number of warheads in our deployed arsenal would not, in a crisis, be available for use if they were needed. The warheads might be removed from their missiles or bombers; they might be disabled and stored remotely -- requiring many hours, days, or longer to be redeployed.

Previous administrations, as well as the current government, have in various ways discussed and considered such a move. In every instance, de-alerting has been firmly rejected. First, the proposal is totally unverifiable. Second, it is highly destabilizing: in a crisis, there would be a race to re-alert and rearm, making the first and sudden use of nuclear weapons a greater or more likely possibility. Third, de-alerting solves no "nuclear" problem, whether in concerns abut proliferation, threats of an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] attack, or any other deterrent or arms control requirement.

The second phase of the Global Zero plan would occur from 2014-2018. In a multilateral framework, the US and Russia would agree to reduce to 500 total warheads each, to be implemented by 2021. All other countries, including China, Pakistan, North Korea and others, would freeze their nuclear stockpiles until 2018, followed by proportionate reductions until 2021 -- irrespective of whether the US deployed arsenal was smaller and less effective than many other countries. If in fact that took place — with nations hostile to the US having arsenals in excess of the US force -- it would be the first time in the history of the nuclear age that such an event took place, and probably an irresistible invitation to them to attack.

Moreover, this plan assumes that a comprehensive verification and enforcement system will have been established -- including agreed-on no-notice, on-site inspections, and that safeguards on the civilian nuclear fuel cycle would be strengthened to prevent their being diverted to build weapons.

The final two phases would include a "binding" 'Global Zero Accord' between 2019-2023, signed by all nuclear capable countries, for the phased, verified, proportionate reduction of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030. The whopping loophole in this plan is that any nation deeming itself not nuclear-capable could opt out of such an agreement, then be completely free to surprise the world with a nuclear arsenal once all the major powers had eliminated theirs.

Between 2024-2030, finally, there would be a complete "phased, verified, proportionate dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030," with an accompanying comprehensive verification and enforcement system prohibiting the development and possession of nuclear weapons.

Apart from the "Alice in Wonderland" nature of this proposal, there is the sense that its advocates share a less than serious understanding of both the nature of US deterrence needs, and the geopolitical balance between the United States and Russia, not amenable to international or treaty law.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by Peter Huessy

'Just in Time' Defense Modernization: Will the United States Miss the Boat?, 2024-08-09
US: The Urgency of Keeping a Credible Deterrence, 2021-03-25
The Pernicious Effects of Popular Nuclear Mythology, 2021-01-19
Tough but Necessary Road Ahead for Arms Control, 2020-11-30
A New Nuclear Deal with Iran?, 2020-10-29

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

4 Reader Comments

Avi Marranazo • Jan 11, 2013 at 09:21

This looks like part of a campaign of character assassination against Senator Hagel. It appears to be led by people who just don't understand that a big part of our deficit reduction is going to have to involve military retrenchment and our taking a defensive posture and not policing the world.

Reply->

Peter Huessy

Avi Marranazo • Jan 23, 2013 at 08:34

Mr. Marranazo equates honest analysis and debate with a "smearing" of a candidate's reputation. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the defense department has taken the following budget cuts since 2009: $330 billion, $175 billion, and $487 billion; and sequestration, if it went forward, would cut an additional $520 billion from defense. Second, when added together with the reduction in the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US military assistance provided nations such as Yemen and Kenya, for example, and additional $70 billion a year has been cut from Pentagon expenditures. This all amounts to $2 trillion dollars over a ten year period, by far the vast majority of any spending reductions that occured in the US government in any accounts. Third, in so far as nuclear policy, the analysis I wrote lays out a careful review of what is needed to maintain nuclear stability and continued deterrence. The Global Zero policies which have been proposed make no logical or strategic sense, and as such, any fair analysis would so conclude. The US has led the way toward reduced nuclear arsenals, even as today China, Russia, and other nations are investing the equivalent of hundreds of billions in new nuclear forces. We have a constitutional requirement to provide for the common defense. The Global Zero proposals do not do that.

Reply->

Noel Griffin

Avi Marranazo • Feb 23, 2013 at 14:09

This is an excellent article. Objective, honest, and very timely. Americans and their leaders need to step back and take a strategic view of where organizations such as Global Zero will take the world. Simplistic, naive, pseudo solutions should not be given priority over the responsibility of the U.S. to provide the necessary capabilities to protect its citizenry and the free world. To do so requires an adequate arsenal of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons to deter a pre-emptive attack by potentially adversarial countries, such as China and Russia. Please do not respond with the argument that these two countries are our "friends." Their actions over the past twenty years clearly testify otherwise. But to expand on that is not the purpose of this response.

The definition of an adequate nuclear deterrent was established in the 1960s as the ability to absorb a pre-emptive first strike that would destroy ninety percent of the U.S. retaliatory force, yet still retain the capability to retaliate and destroy the attacker. In blunt terms, this means that the U.S. would need to maintain delivery systems and reserve nuclear weapons in excess of at least 110% of that maintained by the Soviet Union. That criterion kept the world secure and maintained the peace for decades. It has only been since the dismantling of SAC, the vast majority of the U.S. Minuteman ICBMs, and then the 500 MIRV "Peacekeeper" ICBMs that Russia has undertaken an aggressive, unchecked defiance of the United States. Under the governance of the Communist Party and its leader, Vladimir Putin, Russia has resumed flights of long-range bombers, upgraded its ICBM system, introduced the SAM 170 defense system capable of deterring bomber, fighter, and cruise missile attacks, and began actively working to stop the deployment of the U.S. Missile Defense System. In the meantime, it is helping Iran with its nuclear ambitions and Syria's president retain power with blunt warnings to the U.S. and NATO not to interfere.

In short, since the U.S. allowed itself to become a second-rate nuclear power relative to the Russian Federation, and Vladimir Putin has proceeded to promote his own aggressive agenda with impunity and defiance to the U.S. I could cite many more examples of provocations by Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, and affiliated countries and organizations since the United States abandoned its criterion for nuclear deterrence. As Peter Huessy correctly points out, the Russian Federation has far superior nuclear weapons forces and has taken no unilateral initiative to reduce them. Simply put, there is no incentive. All the Communist Party in the Russian Federation has to do is continue to consolidate its domestic control/power by its overt suppression of opposition parties and wait for its counterparts in the Democrat Party under the leadership of President Obama and proposed Secretary of Defense Hagel to unilaterally complete the effective disarmament of the United States and the Free World. As for Mr. Marranzo's comments, what difference will the savings in defense spending make if the U.S. and it allies are forced to capitulate to Russia and the International Socialist Movement? We will have lost our sovereignty, our freedom, and all of those "sacred" entitlements that he implicitly does not want to cut. Of course, no one should be surprised if he calls this response a "smear." That is the classic socialist counter.

Keep up the great work, Peter!

Reply->

Fereydoun • Jan 11, 2013 at 06:20

This is a great article. Eradication of nuclear weapons is perhaps many human beings' dream. However, one needs to contemplate and see how different countries or governments see the issue. For instance, some countries are located in a dangerous neighborhood. Take the case of Iran, which has some fifteen neighbors, four of which are nuclear powers. The country has been invaded and has been under constant threat of war and invasion.The same goes for Israel, which has been under threat since its inception. Having said all that, there needs to be a collective security guarantee for all nations before a globally accepted zero nuclear commitment is fully implemented.

Reply->