No Nukes--What?

Believe me, as I sit here typing I never thought I'd be proposing the idea that the U.S. should abolish its entire nuclear weapons stockpile! I mean c'mon...that's some kind of hippie concept from the 60's, right?

Well actually no, in 2007 its different. Nuclear arms served a valuable purpose in history during the bi-polar Cold War. They sustained a balance of powers and ironically proved the uselessness of these weapons. After both sides acquired enough capacity to obliterate human existence their use as a viable, usable weapon became ridiculous.

History has moved on. The world is now multi-polar with the U.S. still a dominant force but a power in a lake of other smaller powers. In a global context we need to recognize modern, high-yield nuclear arms for what they are: civilization killers. Under what circumstances would a justified, moral response to an attack be the obliteration of our enemy's civilization? Perish the thought, but even if one of our cities were taken, would an eye-for-an-eye response be appropriate or barbaric? I think technology answers this question by providing rational (and stronger) options no military force has had before.

Leveling a city with a nuke is the bluntest of blunt instruments. It is ultimately ineffective as an offensive capability. Whoever had friends or family in the doomed city will be out for your blood--it will never stop (especially in sand-covered parts of the world where memories of past offenses seem to carry on indefinitely). Far more effective is the ability to make precision strikes against military, civilian, or human targets of our choosing. We now have awesome capabilities for lightning-fast, precision attack. We can touch almost any target we choose with ever-increasing focus and accuracy. Like the great WWII battleships, nuclear arms have been made obsolete by these modern weapons.

The new message is indeed powerful: if you misbehave we don't need to destroy your cities...we can hit just you! For all but the largest opponents (who we never want to tangle with anyway) we can instigate action up to and including change of government in response to an attack on U.S. soil, without ever having to consider a nuclear option.

With these capabilities the U.S. has conventional assets that can mete out mind-numbing retribution if need be with a focus that leaves no doubt who or what the target is. Isn't this infinitely more effective as a military tactic and as a policy message than leaving a big hole where a population center once stood?

On the political front the U.S. is currently in a hypocritical position. On the one hand we pressure smaller countries to disarm their nukes or not pursue them in the first place, while hoarding stockpiles of these weapons. What's the message? "We're in the club, and you can't be!" Of course this incites these countries to want nukes all the more--to be in the club!

If we were to abolish our stockpiles and renounce nukes as a useful weapon how much stronger would our leadership be? We would have an immense moral imperative to provoke other nations to likewise abandon this path.

The hopeful message is that whether others follow our lead to abandon nukes or not isn't the issue. Since we have better, more effective alternatives then we are not in any way diminished by not having them, regardless of what others have. We can be fully prepared to respond appropriately should someone else decide to use one of these doomsday devices.

I hope the U.S. takes this opportunity to reclaim our global leadership by moving to abolish our own nukes, while continuing to aggressively pursue modern, focused military capabilities. The danger if we don't is that countries far less stable than ours (or the old Soviet Union for that matter), some of whom already have nukes, will be in a position of thinking they are useful and valuable--and perhaps even usable. Lets get rid of these things before they get rid of us!