The chance of conflict in the Korean peninsula should be weighed against the direct threat being posed to the U.S. The risk of nuclear war in Seoul should not be exchanged for the risk of nuclear war in San Francisco. Washington should not deceive itself that risk and tragedy can be forever postponed. The U.S. should prepare for the unthinkable to prevent it from becoming the inevitable.
All things considered, Israel must now prepare to rely upon a multi-faceted doctrine of nuclear deterrence. In turn, this doctrine must be rendered selectively less ambiguous and more expressly synergistic. Its operational range of application must include both rational and non-rational adversaries and both state and sub-state foes.
Since the United States’ near-peer adversaries possess nuclear weapons, the U.S. Army needs to prepare for small, politically constrained, ambiguous, limited conflict. Without a reorientation on the future, the U.S. Army doctrine and concepts are not useful and potentially limit policymakers’ options, or worse, risk accidental nuclear escalation.
For Israel, ultimate survival tasks will necessarily be profoundly intellectual or analytic, and require utterly durable victories of "mind over mind" as well as more traditional ones of mind over matter. These victories, in turn, will depend upon prior capacities to fully understand the prospectively many-sided elements of Cold War II. In principle, at least, such prior capacities could lead Israel to seriously consider certain preemption options.
By definition, as long as particular countries regard their nuclear status as an asset, every state that is a member of the so-called nuclear club is a direct beneficiary of the Cold War. This is because all core elements of any national nuclear strategy, whether actual or still-contemplated, were originally conceptualized, shaped, and even codified within the earlier bipolar struggles of post World War II international relations. Nonetheless, as the world now enters into a more-or-less resurrected form of this initial struggle the strategic postures of each extant nuclear weapons state are being modified within the still-developing parameters of Cold War II.
Technology and military organizations exist in a paradoxical relationship. The relentless march of science creates pressure on strategists and their organizations to adopt novel technology and adapt their doctrine. This pressure can derive from technological innovation by one’s own scientists as well as the fear of what a potential enemy is developing on its side. Yet, as political scientist Stephen Rosen points out, organizations, and especially military organizations, have difficulty changing because “they are designed not to change.” A bureaucracy is organized to perform established tasks with uniformity and regularity. This inherent attribute presents the strategic innovator with a dilemma; a military organization must innovate to survive, but it resists innovation by its very nature. This problem is exacerbated by the reality that the direction and timing of optimal innovation is often ambiguous in the moment and only clear in hindsight.
The Obama Administration’s approach to the problem of North Korea has been termed strategic patience, and is in fact the same approach employed by previous administrations. At the heart of strategic patience is a belief that the status quo, while less than ideal, is better than many possible consequences of taking action. The premise of this argument is incorrect. What we see in North Korea is not a status quo, similar today to what it was decades ago, but rather a situation worsening at an exponential pace.
All strategies have origins; none are conceived wholly from scratch. This axiom holds true even for states’ most fundamental strategies; indeed, the grander and more foundational the strategy, the more deeply rooted its historical and cultural origins. Yet it can sometimes appear otherwise: new strategic realities can emerge, if not overnight, then in the space of, say, a fortnight, a month, or a year, and states can be left scrambling to articulate a coherent response. The advent of nuclear weaponry was one such instance. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as a watershed to which historians and policy-makers are inexorably drawn. What came before stands as pre-history; what follows is a brave new world, demanding brave new strategic visions. So runs the logic.
Great theories stand the test of time—shedding light on their subject’s essence despite varying contexts, technological upheavals or mutable human relations. One such work is Carl von Clausewitz’s On War. That said, with the detonation of the atomic bomb and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, many find Clausewitz wanting. How can there be a decisive battle without nuclear annihilation? Nuclear weapons seem to breach our understanding of force, suggesting the need for radically different conceptions of war. Enter Thomas C. Schelling and his work on The Strategy of Conflict
Following the announcement of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Lieutenant General (Retired, U.K. Army) Sir Graeme Lamb was interviewed by Jason Criss Howk, a former colleague that had assisted him during the creation and international acceptance of the Afghan Reconciliation and Peace Program. The interview was conducted via email from 15–16 July 2015.
In 1945 the world was a dangerous place, and it remains so today. World War II is still noted as the most catastrophic conflict in history — more than 60 million people died, which accounted for 3% of the world’s entire population in 1940. But in the seventy years since atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese home islands, it has become apparent that ridding the earth of nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Our own weapons have served as a deterrent to prevent hostile usage on Americans by a foreign power — their value was proven during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It isn’t without it’s problems, but overall American nuclear deterrence remains strong today, and it will continue to be used as a pillar of American security strategy into the 21st Century.
The Iran Deal Heralds a Grand Strategic Decision
This past week saw the announcement of a putatively historic diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and Iran over the dismantling of the latter’s nuclear program. More precisely, the deal is a framework for a more comprehensive settlement, which will require U.S. Congressional approval (and which will provoke a storm of questions and debate, following the Senate Republicans’ well-publicized letter regarding their constitutional role).
In principle, however, the deal offers a face-saving exit from a more-than-decade-long confrontation between the U.S. and Iran over nuclear enrichment: Iran will eliminate a large portion of its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantle most of its enrichment centrifuges, and suspend most of its enrichment program for 15 years, a verification regime (to be determined) will ensure that this takes place, and the U.S. will preside over the lifting of sanctions, theoretically subject to Iranian compliance.
Many experts — including non-Democrats — have touted the deal as a way out of the morass of Middle Eastern political rivalry in which the U.S. has been entangled since the first Gulf War. George Friedman, president of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor, has argued in a recent book that the U.S. should seek a long-term rapprochement with Iran, rather as it did when President Nixon reopened relations with China, since their larger interests (including containing Sunni jihadism) overlap. This was echoed by (now former) Stratfor chief geopolitical analyst and prolific author Robert Kaplan, who argued recently that not only are the U.S. and Iran on the same side against ISIS, but that the U.S. needs a new relationship with Iran if it is to complete its “strategic pivot” to the Pacific.
If it were only that simple
However, the deal has drawn criticism, and not only from partisan quarters. In addition to opposition from Republicans, moderate voices have also pointed out serious flaws in the arrangement. The always-thoughtful John Schindler has summed up the objections quite nicely: the arrangement is unverifiable, the lifting of sanctions is permanent while Iranian compliance is temporary, and Iran has few incentives not to seek any opportunity to build a working nuclear weapon, along with ample political and ideological reasons for doing so. As a reader who responded to Kaplan’s arguments in a letter to the editor of The Atlantic noted (see Dave Esrig’s comment in the middle of the page), those hoping for a “Nixon in China” moment with Iran may have been doomed to disappointment, since Iran, compared to China during the 1970’s, does not appear as eager for an end to its conflict with the U.S. Even Iran expert Kenneth Pollack, a proponent of a nuclear deal with Iran, has noted recently that an agreement preventing an Iranian nuclear test may be the best that the U.S. can do, since Iran might prefer to stop short of such a test and settle for a “breakout window.” (Full disclosure: I studied under Kenneth Pollack at Georgetown some years ago. He will not necessarily endorse what I write here.) In other words, to quote Schindler’s article again, the U.S. “just gave Iran exactly what they wanted.” Or, more precisely, it gave it what it was probably going to take anyway.
Iran is perhaps the only state in the region (apart from Israel) that has the money, manpower, and will to fight that is needed to keep ISIS in check.
These criticisms are undeniably valid. As Pollack himself noted last year, the experience of three decades of undeclared war has depleted trust between the U.S. and Iran to the point where a deal is difficult to take at face value. Moreover, the rise of ISIS since the November 2013 temporary nuclear agreement has altered the political environment in ways that are not often remarked upon. Put simply, Iran is perhaps the only state in the region (apart from Israel) that has the money, manpower, and will to fight that is needed to keep ISIS in check. Being Shi’ite (as well as non-Arab), Iran must oppose the Sunni fundamentalist ISIS: although it is often noted that Iran keeps in touch with Sunni jihadists and sometimes uses them for its purposes, it cannot provide more than token political or material support to the larger Sunni jihadist movement, since fundamentally, they are on opposite sides of a sectarian war. No other regional state except Israel is in this position; no other regional state at all has the resources and regional influence to backstop the militias that are fighting ISIS from Iraqi Kurdistan to Baghdad to Syria to Lebanon. This is the case despite (indeed, because of) Iran’s longstanding policy of fighting against U.S. forces in Iraq, which created a triangular war in which Iran, the U.S., and Sunni jihadists are all opposed to each other — insofar as Iran wants the U.S. permanently out of Iraq, it has to take the lead in both backing its own side and ensuring that the Sunni jihadists do not make too much progress. Because of Iran’s role in containing ISIS, as long as preventing ISIS from attacking the U.S. or achieving its political goal of uniting a major chunk of the Islamic world under its rule remains the U.S.’ top regional priority, the U.S. cannot attack Iran, nor can it weaken Iran substantively; indeed, anything that in any way ties Iran’s hands works against the U.S.’ regional strategy at the moment. Until ISIS is defeated, this will not change.
The effects on U.S. negotiations with Iran are predictable. In part because it is difficult to imagine a more damaging sanctions regime than the one already in place, and in part because of the nature of the U.S.-Iran relationship to begin with, the only meaningful leverage the U.S. can apply to Iran at the negotiating table is the threat of force majeure — either a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a broader war in which the U.S. would seek the overthrow of the Iranian regime altogether. Offering to pay Iran to suspend its nuclear program, as with the infamous North Korean Agreed Framework, can be presumed to be a dead letter — there would be little incentive for Iran not to pocket the goods and clandestinely proceed apace. Sticks must accompany carrots if negotiating is not to turn into begging. In the wake of the Iraq War, U.S. threats of major war against Iran rang hollow for years, but they retained a kind of surface plausibility: absent a deal, the U.S. might just be insane or desperate enough to do whatever it takes to solve the problem. Now that the U.S. is working as hard as it can to contain ISIS within the heartland of the ancient Caliphate that the latter seeks to reestablish, it cannot afford to demolish ISIS’ main enemy. Iran therefore has little to fear from the U.S. and less incentive to abide by a deal. (Or even to make one. The fact that the U.S. has recently humiliated itself by setting a deadline for making a deal, while Iran felt no such pressure, speaks for itself.)
…the U.S. twin goals of counterterrorism and counterproliferation work against each other in the Middle East.
However, there is an insoluble policy dilemma at work. As I have written before, the U.S. twin goals of counterterrorism and counterproliferation work against each other in the Middle East. Counterterrorism — really, countering the global Sunni jihadist movement in any of its serial forms — requires the U.S. to adopt a number of policies. It must support and strengthen established states (which, ipso facto, cannot abide more than a minimum of internal violence from organizations dedicated to their overthrow), support ethnoreligious constituencies that are immune to co-option by the Sunni jihadist movement (particularly the region’s Iranian-backed Shi’a communities, but also other groups), and, where practicable, avoid putting its troops where jihadists can score easy victories by targeting them. All of the above require cooperation not only with Iran, but with a host of other regional actors, many of them malodorous. (This includes, as U.S. policy makers have recently discovered, Syria’s ‘Assad, since Syria’s Sunnis were vulnerable to cooption by ISIS in a way that its other ethnic groups are not.) It also, sooner or later, puts the U.S. in the position of, at minimum, having to distance itself from Saudi Arabia, whose founding religious ideology, Wahabism, is an extreme form of the Salafism that motivates Al Qaeda and ISIS, and which, since the rise of Al Qaeda, has benefited from foreign wars that can draw off Saudi extremists who might otherwise attack home soil.
Iraq, previously, provided this outlet; the war against ISIS is merely a continuation of that conflict. At maximum, countering Sunni jihadism requires politically opposing Saudi Arabia, ultimately by waging a proxy war against it. (Saudi Arabia is widely accused of supporting ISIS via “private” contributions to Islamic charities and aggressive proselytization of Wahabism.) Counter intuitively, countering Sunni jihadism even strains the U.S.-Israel relationship, since Israel has always feared states more than terrorists and since Israel’s primary adversary is Iran while its sometime partner against Iran is Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. is on the verge of batting zero for two where this dilemma is concerned….the U.S. must now make the best of what few options it has left. It is in light of all this that we must assess the Iranian nuclear deal.
Counterproliferation, on the other hand, requires just the opposite. Because, for those who seek them, nuclear weapons are the ultimate security guarantee, and because the dismantling of a nuclear program is so difficult to verify, it is very difficult to disincentivize their production once a state decides to have an arsenal. This necessitates that the U.S. be open to the policy of waging war against would-be proliferators (or threatening war, which amounts to the same thing), often with incomplete evidence of their own activity — witness the neverending controversy over whether it was worthwhile to oust Saddam Hussein, who had no nuclear program butappeared to, and who did possess raw uranium ore. Such wars are not only bloody and expensive, but also disruptive: as in Iraq, they create ungoverned spaces where Sunni jihadists can first take refuge and then take power. On the other hand, smashing would-be proliferators is in line with Israeli policy goals and therefore helps, rather than hinders, U.S.-Israeli cooperation. Such wars and threats of wars also work to the advantage of Saudi Arabia, in the same way that countering ISIS and its predecessors has worked against Saudi policy goals, and also because they (ideally) eliminate potential nuclear threat close by.
The U.S. is on the verge of batting zero for two where this dilemma is concerned. Having destroyed Iraq, it created a vacuum that is now controlled by ISIS and used as a staging area for attacks that will probably one day seek to destroy Jordan in preparation for assaults on Jerusalem and Mecca. On the other hand, having avoided going after Iran when it had the chance, the U.S. is now in no position to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, and, in turn, creating the potential for a regional arms race. Almost all of this involves choices already made; the U.S. must now make the best of what few options it has left.
Uneasy ground to walk on
It is in light of all this that we must assess the Iranian nuclear deal. A few points now seem obvious, points that do not fit easily into the dominant narratives surrounding the issue.
…the U.S. must pick not only its policies, but its problems.
First, counterterrorism really does reign supreme. The U.S. has more to fear, for its purposes, from Sunni jihadists than it has from Iran, and for that reason it will need to abstain, at the very least, from getting in Iran’s way as it kills them off. This may or may not make a deal on Iran’s nuclear program desirable, but it does argue for tabling the issue one way or the other.
Secondly, for that reason, the critics who noted that an Iranian deal would herald the end of U.S. counterproliferation policy in the Middle East are right. The U.S. does not have the money, the troops, or the political will to continue enforcing the nonproliferation regime in the Middle East. It does not have the money because of its economic slowdown and demographic problem: if the U.S. is to avoid serious fiscal problems in the coming decade, it will have to adjust its domestic spending programs, and it is not possible for either party to take a serious position on this while pouring funds into a Middle Eastern war of choice. (To this day, a politically devastating but substantively irrelevant talking point against entitlement reform in the U.S. has been that the U.S. had a trillion dollars to throw away on Iraq, but cannot find the money to pay for Social Security and Medicare.) It does not have the troops because enemies are arising in other quarters. Not only will the U.S. sooner or later have to complete the “strategic pivot,” as Kaplan notes in the above-cited article, but the U.S. will also need troops to deter Russian aggression against vulnerable NATO members such as the Baltic states. It will also need to cease relying on Russia for logistical support to operations in near-inaccessible parts of the greater Middle East, for obvious reasons. Given all this, tying the U.S. down in a Middle Eastern land war should not be considered an option at this point. As for political will, the U.S.’ political polarization of late is well-known, and until it can be solved it will pay to adjust expectations accordingly. For all these reasons, the U.S. will have to take whatever deal it can get that will allow it to leave the Middle East to its own devices, and make do with the resulting consequences.
Thirdly, the U.S. is in the midst of a smaller policy pivot within the Persian Gulf. Assuming it does not deviate from its goal of rolling back ISIS in any way possible, and assuming it needs Iran’s help for these purposes, the U.S. will eventually back away from its relationship with Saudi Arabia even as it seeks a new relationship with Iran. The U.S., to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, does not have friends in the Middle East, only interests — and Saudi Arabia’s goals are no longer those of the U.S.
And fourth: the U.S. will have a different relationship with Iran from here on. Not only will the U.S. have to adjust its policy to deal with ISIS, but it will have to adjust its policy to deal with the wider geopolitical situation. With the U.S. once again in a confrontation with Russia, it will have to start treating Middle Eastern issues as relatively peripheral once again, and for that reason it will have to begin treating its Middle East goals as a means to a larger end rather than an end in itself. In the Cold War, the U.S. pursued relationships of convenience with Middle Eastern states to prevent them from falling completely into the Soviet Union’s orbit. The Iranian deal could be the first step toward something similar. Although Iran is seen as falling into Russia’s political orbit of late, this is in part due to U.S. opposition to it, while, conversely, and as noted, the U.S. has increasingly little to gain from rigid adherence to the regional partners it does have. Separating Iran from Russia — not by making it an ally, but by making it unaligned — should be a U.S. policy goal at this point. The model is Nasser’s Egypt during the Cold War, which was emphatically not pro-U.S. but was kept from being unambiguously pro-Soviet. An Iranian nuclear deal will open up opportunities in this area. U.S. expectations should be modest: Iran will not necessarily do what the U.S. wants, but the U.S. can prevent it from becoming too much of a thorn in the U.S.’ side as it confronts Russia.
Finally, there will be more to do on broader policy questions. Partnering with Iran against ISIS will only work if the U.S. is willing to put considerable political and military muscle behind that effort, even allowing for a prohibition on introducing U.S. ground forces. Attempting to separate Iran from Russia will only be worthwhile if the U.S. deems protecting its NATO allies to be important and does what it takes to do so. There will be regional political fallout in the Gulf which the U.S. will have to manage, often aggressively. In other words, this is only the beginning.
However, the U.S. must pick not only its policies, but its problems. The U.S. has an opportunity to walk away from a resource-sapping Middle East counterproliferation policy, and it is advisable to take it. There does not seem to be much of an alternative.
Martin Skold is currently pursuing his PhD at the University of St. Andrews, with a dissertation focused on the strategy of long-term security competition between states.
Have a response or an idea for your own article? Follow the logo below, and you too can contribute to The Bridge:
Enjoy what you just read? Please help spread the word to new readers by sharing it on social media.
The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)—mandated by Section 1070 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181)—was a comprehensive review of the role of nuclear weapons in national security policy, deterrence strategy, and force structure out to 2015–2020, completed between 2009 and 2010 under the direction of the Obama administration. The NPR was designed as a whole–of–government effort to set policy, strategy, force structure for five to ten years and set conditions for follow–on negotiations to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and align policies, strategies, and programmatics with current nuclear policy goals. The Obama administration’s April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) report is not a strategy—it made specific posture recommendations and one of its purposes was to guide nuclear weapons policy—it is a review of nuclear posture, but it may be seen as the closest thing to a national nuclear strategy. How did the 2010 NPR inform U.S. nuclear strategy? As declaratory policy, the 2010 Obama administration NPR was significant in shaping nuclear weapons strategy, plans, and programs, but its successes should be understood against a backdrop of significant continuity in policy and posture since the last NPR. This analysis will assess the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review key decisions and the primary public debates related to the role of nuclear weapons in national security.
Key Decisions—Role of Nuclear Weapons—Purpose
The new Obama administration and the president’s April 2009 Prague speech reignited interest and refocused attention on nuclear strategic issues, according to Jeffery Larsen and Polly Holdorf of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, but the administration’s approach quickly revealed itself as “cautious.” Called for by Congress, the NPR was executed by the Department of Defense with Department of State and Department of Energy over approximately a year. Public law directed a comprehensive review of the role of nuclear forces in U.S. military strategy, planning, and programming, and the relationship among U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms control objectives, focusing on key objectives of nuclear weapons polices and posture, and policy guidance “for implementing President Obama’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers, while simultaneously advancing broader U.S. security interests.” At a background briefing announcing the start of the NPR, a senior defense official described the broad framework of the NPR. The NPR would link the president’s Prague speech with specific policy steps to advance nonproliferation goals, seriously consider unilateral arms reductions, while maintaining a safe, secure, and effective strategic deterrent with respect to forces and infrastructure. In his forward to the final NPR report, Secretary of Defense Gates suggested that counterterrorism and counterproliferation would be overriding goals, while the report also intended to describe how the United States would reduce force levels and the role of nuclear weapons. Among the key decisions of the 2010 NPR, the report called for a major adjustment to the prioritization of ends (elevating terrorism above other more traditional deterrence goals), and a strong re–affirmation of the goals to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and pursue arms reductions. These two last goals were not essentially new, but the level of presidential emphasis was unusual. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review report will be analyzed for its key decisions relating to reducing the role of nuclear weapons and strengthening Negative Security Assurances (NSAs). This is an analysis of the NPR report and the public debates it sparked—the emphasis here is on declaratory policy—what posture changes were actually made are a secondary focus.
Key Decisions—Role of Nuclear Weapons—Purpose
In a sweeping April 2009 speech in Prague, Czech Republic, President Obama called for steps leading to a nuclear–weapons–free world, a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and Senate Approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Not unlike other presidents before him, Obama also called for vigorous efforts by the United States and other countries to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons–related materials. Obama remarked on release of the NPR report: “We are taking specific and concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons while preserving our military superiority, deterring aggression and safeguarding the security of the American people.” Obama specified five objectives of the NPR, which were outlined in the NPR report: prevent nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation; reduce the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security; maintain strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels; strengthen regional deterrence and reassure U.S. allies; and sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. In tandem with the NPR, the Obama administration redoubled its commitment to working with Russia to preserve strategic stability and dedication to reducing nuclear force levels through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). More than a year after release, the underlying goals of the NPR were reconfirmed in congressional testimony, including maintaining strategic stability, strengthening regional deterrence, and assuring allies, by James Miller, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense. Although the issue of deterrence credibility may have receded somewhat in importance since the Bush administration’s 2001 NPR, the basic goals outlined by Miller were not revolutionary—they were longstanding policy. It is still early to say whether the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review fundamentally changed the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security, but subsequent official policy statements indicated that some changes did stick—the Senate ratified New START, for example. Also, President Obama’s new nuclear weapons employment guidance, issued in mid–2013, directed the Department of Defense to take “concrete steps toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.” The 2010 NPR report repeatedly used language indicating a reduced “role” for nuclear weapons in national security policy and strategy, but it is difficult to understand what role is supposed to mean beyond the level of declaratory policy if there were no corresponding changes in employment or force development policy.
A new administration in 2009 was seen by policy advocates as an opportunity to reassess the purpose of nuclear weapons in national security given what many commentators saw as the urgency of unfulfilled counterpoliferation goals and threats of nuclear terrorism. President Obama’s public remarks signaled that preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism had been moved to “the top” of America’s nuclear agenda: “We have aligned our policies and proposed major funding increases for programs to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.”The NPR report specifically claimed that threats of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation were “pressing” and demanded immediate action. Threat circumstances had changed since the monolithic threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. According to the NPR report, “The threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased.” The NPR focused on the increased risk of nuclear attack but in the context of terrorism. The threat of nuclear attack in the traditional inter–state context did not figure prominently in the 2010 NPR. By 2009, many policy observers had reached a general consensus that the possibility of nuclear war had dropped significantly since the end of the Cold War, but that the threat of nuclear attack (possibly from a terrorist group) was still present if not rising.
Nuclear weapons had been seen as critical to achieving strategic deterrence against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which tended to highlight their sole–purpose role: to deter nuclear attack from another nuclear–armed state. The NPR report accepted a continuing fundamental deterrence role against potential adversaries and in assuring allies and partners, but also recognized that current Cold War force structure was outdated and “poorly suited” for countering current threats like terrorism and “unfriendly regimes” pursuing nuclear weapons. The NPR report pointed to a reduced—or “more circumscribed”—role, as evidenced by the 75 percent drop in the number of deployed strategic weapons since the end of the Cold War, and the substantial reduction in the number of stockpiled weapons. The 2010 NPR report was analyzed by policy advocates for its position (or any indication of the Obama administration thinking) in the ongoing sole–use debate. A sole–use declaratory policy—that nuclear weapons would only be contemplated in response to nuclear use by an adversary—has been favored by many arms control and disarmament advocates, especially as an interim step toward complete disarmament. The NPR addressed the “sole purpose” issue but characterized it as an aspiration to be achieved once circumstances justify a sole–use policy, but specifically, the United States would continue to take steps in reducing the reliance on nuclear weapons to counter nonnuclear attacks. The 2010 NPR did not conclude that circumstances warranted adoption of a sole–use policy. Indeed, the NPR report restated U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, deployed and stockpiled, as “essential” to deterrence and assurance. The 2010 NPR did not recommend a sole–purpose policy for nuclear weapons but reaffirmed a fundamental role for nuclear weapons in national security.
U.S. declaratory policy statements on the overall purpose of nuclear weapons were received and assessed by policy advocates for their impact on other policies and strategies, such as deterrence credibility and nonproliferation. The primary rationale for nuclear weapons was explained in the Secretary of Defense’s 2012 Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense as the ability to inflict “unacceptable damage” against an adversary, but to the extent that deterrence objectives could be met with smaller forces, the United States would consider reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons in national security. According to the 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, which was made part of House Committee on the Armed Services testimony, obsolete Cold War conceptions of threats sustained unnecessarily high force levels. To pursue President Obama’s goal of reduced force levels, the Department of Defense would probably have to reassess the nature of national security threats. The 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report concluded that a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia had become nearly inconceivable. By 2012, it seemed policy makers were generally agreed that nuclear force policies and nuclear force structure needed to change to address the real threats of the twenty–first century, but there also did not seem to be consensus about what threats demanded attention (especially with regard to the use of nuclear weapons). The United States did not accept a “sole–use” policy with the 2010 NPR, but according to administration officials the report did substantially reformulate U.S. NSA policy.
Key Decisions—Role of Nuclear Weapons—NSA
On numerous occasions, Obama administration officials have highlighted the NPR’s reformulated NSA. An NSA—or negative security assurance—refers to official statements made by a nuclear–weapon state that it will not use nuclear weapons against a non–nuclear–weapon state that is also a Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory. NSAs have been a feature of international nuclear policy since 1978 and, before the 2010 NPR, the United States reaffirmed adherence to the policy as recently as 1995. It is important to note that the 1995 formulation of U.S. NSA included the exception of “an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non–nuclear–weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear–weapon State.” This 1995 exception was not highlighted in the 2010 NPR report (though it may be implied). In public statements, President Obama clarified that the U.S. government declaration of an NSA included the important qualification about a potential target state being in compliance with nuclear nonproliferation “obligations.” Although the Obama administration was committed to nonproliferation goals and to strengthening the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the NSA specifically did not apply to states not in compliance with nonproliferation norms. Secretary Clinton publically linked the NSA in the NPR to NPT nonproliferation obligations and the health of the international nuclear nonproliferation system. In public statements, key Obama administration officials emphasized that the NSA included in the NPR report reinforced U.S. commitment to nonproliferation. At the same time, that the NSA excepted states not in compliance with nonproliferation obligations demonstrated that Obama administration policy was not a substantial break with earlier policy (it was not a complete NSA without any exceptions). The 2010 NSA was considered by officials and many observers as a stronger NSA than in the past.
As described in the 2010 NPR report, the role of nuclear weapons would be clearer (less ambiguous) if NSAs were strengthened in U.S. declaratory policy. The 2010 NPR made several, unambiguous references to a strengthened NSA. The use or purpose of issuing NSAs was explicitly connected to threats against vital interests, and the report made clear that the U.S. government’s readiness to accept the revised NSA policy was tied to increased conventional weapons capabilities, improved defenses (including missile defenses), and a corresponding reduction in the counter–WMD role for nuclear weapons. Importantly, the NSA included a qualification relating to special cases of potential destructiveness, clarifying that the U.S. government reserved the right to adjust policy on assurances. The testimony of William Perry, included in the congressional hearing on the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture, in 2009, recommended keeping past NSAs (i.e., stronger than what was finally accepted in the 2010 NPR). Perry recommended reaffirming past NSAs but argued that declaratory policy should include use of nuclear weapons to deter attacks against U.S. interests—not just nuclear attacks. But, in reviewing NPR statements on the NSA, it is not clear the administration’s self–congratulatory fanfare is warranted. Despite obvious efforts to shape declaratory policy, it is not clear what has changed with respect to action policy (employment policy, in this case) since the United States reserved the right to adjust NSAs under certain circumstances. The strengthened NSA seemed to be well–received by some observers who saw it as strengthening U.S. nonproliferation commitments. Tension persists between strengthening NSAs for nonproliferation goals and softening NSAs to bolster deterrence credibility and extended deterrence guarantees.
The 2010 NSA has been interpreted by policy makers and commentators in the years since the NPR. The nuclear policy expert and lead author of the 2001 NPR, Keith Payne considered the Secretary Clinton biological weapons exception—that all response options would be considered in response to a biological weapon (BW) attack—a “useful elaboration,” in congressional testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services. NPR policy direction was clarified in congressional testimony by Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, who stated that the NPR report strengthened “longstanding” policy. In particular, the United States makes its own judgments for exercising and complying with its own NSA. The revised NSA, as clarified in Tauscher’s testimony, applied to NPT member states that are in compliance with nonproliferation obligations, so would not have, for example, applied to states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. Importantly, the 2010 NPR’s NSA and subsequent official clarifications with respect to states deemed to be demonstrably outside NPT compliance were meant to make it clear that states like Iran and North Korea did not fall under the revised NSA. The Obama administration claimed a new NSA policy formulation. But clear exceptions and qualifications to the NSA policy were established following the release of the NPR report. The administration at times suggested NSA policy was new but it was really a reaffirmation and clarification—an important clarification—of earlier policy.
The 2010 NPR was an opportunity for Obama administration to permanently alter the course of nuclear policy and strategy. The 2010 NPR did not recommend a sole–purpose policy for nuclear weapons, but actually (and perhaps not surprisingly) reaffirmed a fundamental role for nuclear weapons in national security. Beginning with the 2009 Prague speech, President Obama set a general policy course for reducing the role of nuclear weapons, within the larger goal of moving toward complete elimination of nuclear weapons (at some indeterminate point in the future). The five overall objectives of the NPR were in line with presidential statements made about the role of nuclear weapons. Statements about the role of nuclear weapons in the NPR were essentially declaratory policy, but not unusual or unexpected. President Obama generally succeeded in steering the NPR in line with his earlier policy vision and direction, but actual statements on the purpose of nuclear weapons and NSAs were not revolutionary—they were evolutionary—they reaffirmed earlier policy formulations.
Public Debates—Role of Nuclear Weapons—NSA
During the NPR, according to Christopher Chyba and J.D. Crouch, the Obama administration faced challenges of “navigating and choosing among sharp disagreements” in nuclear weapons, doctrine, and infrastructure policy. Writing in 2008, Janne Nolan and James Holmes observed that the future nuclear strategic landscape was more uncertain than it was in 1993 and 1994, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, when it proved very difficult for policy makers to actually change aspects of the nuclear posture. Andrew Grotto and Joseph Cirincione assessed that the 2010 NPR faced a “vastly more complex policy environment” than the ones faced by the Clinton and Bush administrations before in 1994 and 2001 respectively. The Obama administration entered the review with the aim of balancing the call for a reduced role for nuclear weapons and the need to assure allies and partners of the effectiveness of U.S. extended deterrence, but the NPR’s results disappointed some who believed it did not go far enough to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons and alarmed others who believed it “undercut” U.S. deterrence credibility. The aim of Obama nuclear policy changes was to update nuclear posture for post–Cold War, twenty–first century threats. Though challenged, the administration has labored successfully, according to Cirincione, to keep policy attention on aligning posture to current perceived threats. The 2010 NPR emboldened policy advocates from all of the policy camps that were involved in the earlier NPRs, including abolitionists and traditionalists. This analysis will review the primary public debates concerning the NPR’s conception of the role of nuclear weapons in national security.
Aderito Vicente concluded that the Obama administration faced an intensely adversarial international environment, a vestige of the Bush foreign and nuclear policies which were seen by some foreign observers as overly unilateral and dismissive of the Non–Proliferation Treaty. As it was, the Obama administration pushed for a more restrictive declaratory policy—closer to no–first–use than some policy observers considered prudent—against some intense internal government policy opposition. The issues of if and how the role of nuclear weapons should be changed, especially given different kinds of threats identified since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, have been debated since the end of the Cold War, carried forward with renewed vigor by policy commentators and advocates following release of the 2010 NPR report. This analysis will consider the role of nuclear weapons in public writings about the NPR, including academic, policy advocacy, and institutional publications, focusing on the NSA because of the administration’s claims about major changes in this area, and the overall purpose of nuclear weapons in national security.
Some policy experts focused on the reformulated NSA as representing a significant change in U.S. policy. But ambiguity has been an enduring characteristic of nuclear deterrent policy (and posture) since the Cold War. The Clinton and Bush administrations issued counter–WMD threats without specifying that nuclear weapons would not be used. The security interests in maintaining ambiguity has conflicted with the advantages of maintaining an unambiguous NSA policy. When aspects of the Bush administration’s NPR became public in January 2002, some commentators criticized the impact of the NPR on NSAs because of the states named as potential targets of U.S. nuclear war planning. For some critics of Bush foreign policy, the 2001 NPR represented a violation of U.S. NSAs, even though the Bush administration publically adhered to established NSA policy with its ambiguity regarding massive attacks against the United States or armed forces. The setting for the NSA issue before the Obama NPR included claims by some commentators that the United States had turned its back on longstanding NPT agreements with the 2001 NPR. The Obama administration was considering changes to the NSA against the backdrop of an acrimonious Bush NPR, leaked portions which indicated planning for nuclear use against NPT member states. The attention the Obama administration gave to the 2010 NSA policy can be seen as an attempt to counter some lingering, unfavorable perceptions regarding the 2001 NPR. It is less clear that the changed NSA has affected employment policy at all.
The inconsistency between the U.S. NSA and calculated ambiguity with respect to U.S. nuclear forces and posture, recognized by commentators well before the 2010 NPR, also touched on the older debate over a no–first–use (NFU) policy. Positive security assurances date to 1968 and UN Security Council Resolution 255, but nonnuclear weapon states continued to express a need for negative security assurances. Scott Sagan renewed the call for the United States to adopt a NFU policy ahead of the 2010 NPT Review Conference to satisfy nonnuclear weapon states’ desire to see the nuclear weapons states honor the NPT Article VI obligation, and he recommended the 2010 NPR assess the feasibility of a NFU policy. Michael Gerson argued that the United States should adopt a NFU policy to enhance crisis stability, another explicit goal of the NPR report. The NPR apparently pursued the contradictory aims of strengthening NSAs, and so U.S. nonproliferation commitments, but maintaining the central role of extended deterrence. Advocates of NSAs were mostly heartened by what they saw as the Obama administration’s unambiguous statements supporting negative security assurances—that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non–nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with nuclear non–proliferation obligations. The questions remain whether this represents significant change in policy and whether it effectively matters in how the United States behaves and prepares for military action against certain potential adversary states such as Iran and North Korea.
Some policy commentators have argued that a strong and unequivocal NSA issued by the United States would tamp down incentives for nuclear proliferation. To the extent that the Bush NPR was seen as pursuing active nuclear use plans against nonnuclear states (Syria and Libya, for example), critics claimed U.S. nuclear policy was eroding the effectiveness of NSAs by undermining the disincentive for such states to pursue nuclear capabilities. U.S. declaratory policy has evolved during the post–Cold War period to reflect a diminishing risk of major nuclear war, but at the same time the United States continues to face challengers who possess nuclear and other WMD which pushes continuing needs for extended deterrence. According to Charles Moxley, a critic of U.S. nuclear policy, there is no evidence that other nuclear policies and war plans have been correlated to the NSA stated in the NPR, and the NSA has questionable legal standing. There is still tension between NSA advocates who would like to see the NSA strengthened more (possibly with legal formalization) and the NSA as declaratory policy only (with no direct connection to employment policy).
Public debates over the purpose of nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPR involved ideas about the enduring and changing roles of nuclear weapons. Leaked portions of the 2001 NPR prompted especially fierce debates over the purpose of nuclear weapons. The Obama NPR report was made public and was closely reviewed by nuclear policy commentators for statements about official thinking on the role and purpose of nuclear weapons. Hew Strachan observed that states still pursue interests with resort to war. For some commentators, despite the sometimes laudable desires of some policy advocates to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely, the political–force rationale for possessing nuclear weapons has not disappeared, just as the role of force in international politics and nuclear weapons as the ultimate symbol of potential force (force capability) persists. The Obama administration’s conceptualizations of nuclear weapons appear contradictory. Seyom Brown wrote in 2013 that Obama’s efforts to transfer strategic counterforce missions to nonnuclear weapon systems is to be commended, but no serious work has been done to construct a “more rational peace–and–security system,” and other states that possess WMD or which desire them are not likely to change without U.S. leadership. Simon Lunn observed that the NPR recommended increasing reliance on nonnuclear defense means, including missile defenses as parts of regional security agreements, to reduce the role of nuclear weapons. Despite the continuing need for a credible and effective nuclear deterrent, advocated by various defense policy makers and analysts including Michele Flournoy and Shawn Brimley, the Obama administration and the 2010 NPR have raised the profile of what steps may be taken to reduce reliance on nuclear deterrence and reduce nuclear force levels. There have been numerous continuities in nuclear weapons policy since end of Cold War, described very well by Kurt Guthe, including the United States should limit its reliance on nuclear weapons to the greatest extent possible without undervaluing deterrence, U.S. nuclear weapons protect allies as well, and nuclear weapons deter all kinds of large–scale attacks. These continuities in nuclear weapons policy have been largely accepted by administrations over time with very little (primarily rhetorical) adjustment.
Through public statements and congressional testimony, the Obama administration overtly aimed to reassess the fundamental role and purpose of nuclear weapons in national security. In the view of Stefanie Hlatky and Michel Fortmann, Obama called for a full “normative shift” and a full break with Cold War nuclear planning assumptions and posture. It is important to note that the Bush administration also called for discarding Cold War postures in its 2001 NPR. Therese Delpech observed that putting countering nuclear terrorism and proliferation on the top of priorities and putting maintaining strategic deterrence third was “weird.” Joseph Pilat wrote in 2009 that the political rationales for nuclear weapons, including the traditional roles of deterrence, assurance, and alliance management, were already transforming; he made the argument that some made before that nuclear weapons are fitting a more and more narrow range of missions. Graham Allison wrote that the nuclear order was in disarray. For observers like Baker Spring, the 2010 NPR prudently avoided rendering the U.S. strategic deterrent an empty threat by adopting a sole–use policy. There appears to be no general agreement among policy experts and commentators about there being a nuclear order that justifies a substantially changed role for nuclear weapons. Still, adjusting the role of nuclear weapons in national security has been a goal pursued by each administration since the end of the Cold War.
The 2010 NPR revived competing conceptions about the long–term risks of changing the role of nuclear weapons, and about whether the change that was outlined in the NPR report had been correctly formulated. Looking at U.S. nuclear force posture since the end of the Cold War, and the force reductions that have already been made, it seems apparent that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is shrinking in significance. But Paul Schulte observed that there has not necessarily been a significant devaluation of nuclear weapons in the United States, though Russia has reasserted a commitment to nuclear deterrence, reinstated nuclear doctrine, and reemphasized the role of theater weapons in balancing conventional weaknesses. It was predicted that the 2010 NPR would be very closely reviewed and scrutinized by allies and partners in East Asia for what the future of U.S. extended deterrence might be. Paul Meyer argued that the 2010 NPR, conducted in a transparent manner and resulting in a public final report, was meant to signal to allies and partners that U.S. extended deterrence is robust, and it was meant to complement the administration’s progressive take on foreign policy. Aiden Warren concluded that, despite the rhetoric that the 2010 NPR had moved U.S. nuclear posture away from Cold War thinking, the Obama administration actually found it very difficult to advance policies in line with nonproliferation and disarmament goals, and that the role of nuclear weapons has been reduced very little. David Lonsdale criticized the Obama administration for shirking the responsibility to prepare for nuclear weapons use, noted that an apparent unwillingness to use nuclear weapons had deflated U.S. nuclear threats, and charged that the 2010 NPR portrayed the United States as a “reluctant nuclear power.” Public debates over the purpose of nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPR have questioned U.S. willingness to use nuclear weapons and doubted that serious changes in the rationale for nuclear weapons have even taken place. Rhetorical advancements by Obama administration seem more real than real policy changes.
In light of President Obama’s historic April 2009 Prague speech, it was perhaps reasonable that many policy advocates and observers were looking for a reduced role for nuclear weapons to be translated into a smaller number of actual warheads. Reacting in part to the Bush administration’s 2001 NPR, which was unpopular with nuclear disarmament advocates and some arms control observers, the Obama administration’s strengthened NSA was generally well–received by policy commentators. But how significant a stronger NSA is must be viewed against the broader continuity in nuclear weapons policy and the tendency of administrations to claim policy changes through primarily rhetoric and not substantial material changes. Public debates since the NPR have highlighted that there are still important disagreements over whether the role of nuclear weapons should change and if so, in what ways. While the Obama administration has been committed to reducing U.S. force levels ahead of the 2002 Moscow Treaty deadlines, some observers have noted that the administration has been especially long on rhetoric, short on action.
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the contentious 2001 NPR which disappointed nuclear arms control and disarmament advocates, and created some international friction over the NPT regime, policy analysts and commentators turned more attention to how nuclear weapons may be employed effectively given the threats of the twenty–first century. Public attention to nuclear posture issues more generally has fallen far short of the levels seen during the 1980s Cold War period. But starting in 2009, with the start of the Obama administration NPR, given policy statements that seemed to echo the global zero movement, it was inevitable that old nuclear weapons policy and posture issues would resurface. Analysts continued to debate whether rogue states alter deterrence calculations or conflict with concepts of deterrence credibility. Can Cold War concepts relating to holding targets at risk be applied to non–state actors and terrorist groups? Have changes in the post–Cold War security environment made the development of new weapons capabilities necessary? In certain respects, if only in rhetoric (which may in fact impact domestic and foreign audiences in substantial ways), the Obama administration NPR did upset some traditional nuclear weapons thinking, and the final report clearly emphasized the need to reduce force levels. The 2010 NPR report mostly emphasized the need to reassess the role of nuclear weapons in national security. Such emphasis, while in no way novel, served to fuel academic and policy debates, especially over the impact of the changed NSA.
The Obama administration’s 2010 NPR shaped U.S. nuclear strategy by elevating nuclear terrorism and proliferation as threats, emphasizing advancements in conventional weapon capabilities which suggest a shrinking role for nuclear weapons, and by laying out clear, future paths for force reductions. It is also true that the NPR is only a few years old. The NPR report was generally well–received by the media but less well in professional, policy, and academic circles. Obama administration may have pursued a conservative approach to changing nuclear posture, but with time that may prove to have been the most prudent approach. While it may prove to be the most influential and successful of the three post–Cold War NPRs, its policy impact has also highlighted the difficulties in permanently changing nuclear weapons posture.
Marco J. Lyons is an Army strategist. The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not reflect those of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Have a response or an idea for your own article? Follow the logo below, and you too can contribute to The Bridge:
Enjoy what you just read? Please help spread the word to new readers by sharing it on social media.
 Release No: 269–09, “DoD Begins QDR, NPR Processes,” April 23, 2009, http[:]//www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12627.
 U.S. Department of Defense, “NPR Terms of Reference Fact Sheet,” June 2, 2009, http[:]//www.defenselink.mil/advisories/advisory.aspx?advisoryid=3117.
 While not strategy, the NPR is connected to grand strategy—the process helps to clarify policy ends—and to the policies and strategies that govern nuclear weapons development, deployment, and employment including the National Defense Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, and relevant Operation Plans (OPLANs).
 In a larger context, it can be said that there has been significant continuity in U.S. nuclear policy and strategy since the early 1980s and the height of the Cold War. See Kurt Guthe, Ten Continuities in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, Strategy, Plans, and Forces (Fairfax, VA: National Institute for Public Policy, 2008).
 Jeffery Larsen and Polly Holdorf, Strategic Stability at Low Numbers of Nuclear Weapons, No. ASCO 2010 032 (Colorado Springs, CO: Air Force Academy, 2010), 5.
 H.A.S.C. No. 112–12, The Status of United States Strategic Forces, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearing Held March 2, 2011 (2011), 124.
 U.S. Department of Defense, Background Briefing on the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review, April 23, 2009.
 U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, April 2010), i.
 Office of the White House Press Secretary, Statement by President Barack Obama on the Release of Nuclear Posture Review, April 6, 2010, https[:]//www.hsdl.org/?view&did=26909.
 Nuclear Posture Review Report, iii.
 H.A.S.C. No. 112–88, The Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and Posture, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearing Held November 2, 2011 (2012), 161.
 Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States Specified in Section 491 of 10 U.S.C., 5.
 Statement by President Barack Obama on the Release of Nuclear Posture Review.
 Nuclear Posture Review Report, 3.
 Ibid., v.
 Ibid., 45.
 Ibid., 16–17.
 Ibid., 6.
 U.S. Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Washington, DC: Secretary of Defense, 2012), 5.
 U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: What Are the Requirements for a Strong Deterrent in an Era of Defense Sequester? Hearing Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Armed Services, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. (2013), 20.
 See “Security Assurances,” http[:]//www.ppnn.soton.ac.uk/bb2/Bb2secK.pdf.
 Barack H. Obama, Statement on the Release of the Nuclear Posture Review, Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents (April 6, 2010): 1–2.
 DoD News Briefing with Secretary Gates, Navy Adm. Mullen, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Chu from the Pentagon, Presenters: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, April 6, 2010.
 Nuclear Posture Review Report, 15–16.
 Ibid., 16.
 S. Hrg. 111–218, The Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, Committee on Armed Services, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearing Held May 7, 2009 (2010), 9.
 H.A.S.C. 112–12, The Status of the United States Strategic Forces, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011), 32.
 S. Hrg. 111–824, Nuclear Posture Review, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 22, 2010 (2011), 61.
 Ibid., 58.
 Ibid., 37.
 Christopher F. Chyba and J.D. Crouch, “Understanding the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy Debate,” Washington Quarterly 32, no. 3 (2009): 21.
 Janne E. Nolan and James R. Holmes, “The Bureaucracy of Deterrence,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64, no. 1 (2008): 56.
 Andrew Grotto and Joseph Cirincione, Orienting the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review: A Roadmap (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2008), 12.
 Steven Pifer, Richard C. Bush, Vanda Felbab–Brown, Martin S. Indyk, Michael O’Hanlon, and Kenneth M. Pollack, U.S. Nuclear and Extended Deterrence: Considerations and Challenges, Arms Control Series, no. 3 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010), 54.
 See Joseph Cirincione, “Taking the Field: Obama’s Nuclear Reforms,” Survival 52, no. 2 (2010): 117–128.
 Aderito H.R. Vicente, “Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Strategy: Differences between Obama and Bush Policies,” Research Center, University of Murcia, September 8, 2011, 24.
 Joanna Spear, “More Business as Usual? The Obama Administration and the Nuclear Posture Review,” Contemporary Security Policy 32, no. 1 (2011): 259.
 Linton F. Brooks, “Taking Disarmament Seriously: Prospects for Changing Strategic Doctrines,” in Nuclear Challenges and Policy Options for the Next U.S. Administration, ed. Jean Du Preez, Occasional Paper, no. 14 (Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2008), 74.
 James A. Russell and James J. Wirtz, “Negative Security Assurances and the Nuclear Posture Review,” Strategic Insights 1, no. 5 (2002): 2.
 Charles P. Blair and Jean P. Du Preez, “Visions of Fission: The Demise of Nuclear Negative Security Assurances on the Bush Administration’s Pentomic Battlefield,” Nonproliferation Review 12, no. 1 (2005): 54, 56.
 Harold A. Feiveson and Ernst Jan Hogendoorn, “No First Use of Nuclear Weapons,” Nonproliferation Review 10, no. 2 (2003): 91.
 Scott D. Sagan, “The Case for No First Use,” Survival 51, no. 3 (2009): 173.
 Michael S. Gerson, “No First Use: The Next Step for U.S. Nuclear Policy,” International Security 35, no. 2 (2010): 19.
 Theo Farrell, “Nuclear Non–Use: Constructing a Cold War History,” Review of International Studies 36, no. 4 (2010): 826–827.
 Justin V. Anderson and Jeffrey A. Larsen, Extended Deterrence and Allied Assurance: Key Concepts and Current Challenges for U.S. Policy, INSS Occasional Paper (U.S. Air Force Academy, CO: Institute for National Security Studies, 2013), 15.
 Charles J. Moxley Jr., “Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review: An Ambitious Program for Nuclear Arms Control but a Retreat from the Objective of Nuclear Disarmament,” Fordham International Law Journal 34, no. 4 (2010): 752–753.
 Hew Strachan, “The Strategic Gap in British Defence Policy,” Survival 51, no. 4 (2009): 57–58.
 James Wood Forsyth Jr., B. Chance Saltzman, and Gary Schaub Jr., “Remembrance of Things Past: The Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons,” Strategic Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (2010): 85.
 Seyom Brown, “Beyond MAD: Obama’s Realistic—but Risky—Effort to Reduce the Role of Nuclear Weapons,” Survival 55, no. 6 (2013): 144.
 Simon Lunn, “Reducing the Role of NATO’s Nuclear Weapons: Where Do We Stand After Tallinn?” Briefing Note, Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, 2010, 6.
 Michele A. Flournoy and Shawn Brimley, “The Defense Inheritance: Challenges and Choices for the Next Pentagon Team,” Washington Quarterly 31, no. 4 (2008): 69.
 Guthe, Ten Continuities, 37.
 Stefanie von Hlatky and Michel Fortmann, “The Nuclear Question and the Obama Presidency,” International Journal 64, no. 1 (2008–2009): 179.
 Therese Delpech, Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012), 139.
 Joseph F. Pilat, “Nonproliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament, and Extended Deterrence in the New Security Environment,” Strategic Insights 8, no. 4 (2009): 1.
 See Graham T. Allison, “Nuclear Disorder: Surveying Atomic Threats,” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 1 (2010): 74–85.
 Baker Spring, “The Nuclear Posture Review’s Missing Objective: Defending the U.S. and Its Allies Against Strategic Attack,” Backgrounder (Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, November 2010), 3.
 Paul Schulte, “The Strategic Risks of Devaluing Nuclear Weapons,” Contemporary Security Policy 34, no. 1 (2013): 216.
 Pifer et al, U.S. Nuclear and Extended Deterrence, 30.
 Paul Meyer, “Policy or Posturing: The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review in an International Context,” International Journal 66, no. 3 (2011): 664.
 Aiden Warren, “The Promises of Prague Versus Nuclear Realities: From Bush to Obama,” Contemporary Security Policy 32, no. 2 (2011): 452.
 David Lonsdale, “Obama’s Second Term: Time for a New Discourse on Nuclear Strategy,” Comparative Strategy 32, no. 5 (2013): 469.
 See Josiane Gabel, “The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons after September 11,” Washington Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2004–2005): 181–195.
Nuclear thinkers had no data-rich nuclear history to work from and so they built their theory upon deductive models. The result is a body of thought that reflects less an understanding of the worth of nuclear weapons for military practitioners than a collection of elegant models and American preferences that are confused with universal truths. In addressing the topic of nuclear weapons and strategy, we attempt to offer not a novel construct for thinking about nuclear weapons, but to highlight some of the shortcomings of the dominant approach to thinking about strategy and nuclear weapons and to suggest some guideposts to improve strategic thinking.