Election Disadvantage
Ext – Nuclear Cuts Kill Deterrence
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Obama’s nuke cuts kills deterrence abilities
- Cuts in funding for nuke modernization kills deterrence
- Reducing nuclear arsenal weakens deterrence
Ext – Nuclear Cuts Kill DeterrenceNuclear weapons are key to deterrence --- six reasons.Thayer, 2012 (Bradley A. Thayer, a consultant to the Department of Defense and professor of political science at Baylor University, 2/20/12, “Preserving our nuclear deterrence: Obama proposal for force reduction is foolhardy,” Washington Times, http://search.proquest.com/docview/922263797) For deterrence purposes, nuclear weapons matter for six reasons. First, they help keep the peace and prevent crises from escalating, as the world witnessed with the Cuban missile crisis. Second, they deter an attack on the U.S. homeland. Third, nuclear weapons - both strategic and tactical - allow the United States to extend deterrence credibly, effectively and cheaply to its allies, such as Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia. This provides them with security and removes their incentive to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Fourth, we have nuclear weapons to deter attacks against the U.S. military. Fifth, nuclear weapons play a role in deterring escalation of conflict. For example, were China to attack Taiwan, U.S. nuclear weapons would deter escalation to a strategic exchange between the United States and China. Finally, nuclear weapons deter the use of other weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons or chemical weapons, against the U.S. homeland, allies or U.S. military. Nuclear weapons aid Uncle Sam's ability to coerce opponents as well for three reasons. First, in a crisis situation, nuclear weapons help persuade a challenger not to escalate to a higher level of violence or move up a rung on the escalation ladder. Second, although laden with risks, they also provide the possibility of attacking first to limit the damage the United States or its allies would receive. Whether the U.S. would do so is another matter. But possessing the capability provides the nation with coercive capabilities in crisis situations or war. Third, nuclear weapons give the United States the ability to threaten nuclear first-use to stop a conventional attack or limited nuclear attack and to signal the risk of escalating violence to a higher level. Regrettably, the cold fact is that the clock cannot be turned back. Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented, and they remain key tools to advance the interests of the United States and international stability. The global deterrent and coercive commitments of the United States do not permit additional cuts. They cannot be eliminated or dramatically reduced without a cost and penalty for the interests of the United States. The Cold War changed much, but it did not alter the need to be able to deter and coerce foes, a need as identifiable to the ancient Greeks as it is to us today. No state has given up key tools, certainly not China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, France or the United Kingdom, and the United States should not be first. No superpower has contemplated such drastic reductions in essential weapons it and its allies need now and will need in the future. Obama’s nuke cuts kills deterrence abilitiesGertz, 2012 (Bill Gertz, senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon, former national security reporter, editor, and columnist for 27 years at the Washington Times, author of six books, four of which were national bestsellers. His most recent book was The Failure Factory, a look at an out-of-control government bureaucracy that could have been a primer for the Tea Party, June 19, 2012, “A CUT TOO FAR OBAMA SET TO SEEK DEEPER CUTS IN NUCLEAR ARSENAL,” The Washington Free Beacon, http://freebeacon.com/a-cut-too-far/) President Obama has decided to seek deeper cuts in deployed strategic nuclear weapons to as few as 1,000 warheads, sharply below the target of 1,550 warheads required under a 2010 U.S.-Russia arms treaty, U.S. officials said Monday. Critics say the steep cuts, which the administration will seek in new talks with a growing anti-U.S. government in Moscow, would undermine U.S. strategic deterrence for the United States and its allies in Asia and Europe. The lower warhead levels also would be contrary to recent congressional testimony from a strategic forces commander who said further cuts would weaken the ability to deter nuclear states like Russia and China. A U.S. strategic nuclear force posture of 1,000 strategic warheads has not been seen since the early 1950s. At the height of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had as many as 30,000 nuclear weapons. The deeper nuclear cuts are outlined in a forthcoming report the Pentagon calls the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) implementation study, dubbed the mini-NPR, and reflect President Obama’s announced 2009 effort to completely eliminate all nuclear weapons. The announcement comes despite reports that Russia and China are engaged in a major buildup of their nuclear forces, and North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear arsenals.
OBAMA SET TO SEEK DEEPER CUTS IN NUCLEAR ARSENAL,” The Washington Free Beacon, http://freebeacon.com/a-cut-too-far/) Gen. Robert Kehler, the current Strategic Command leader, said last month that he is worried about cuts in both warheads and funding needed for modernizing aging nuclear weapons and infrastructure. Under difficult fiscal constraints, nuclear forces that need modernizing include delivery systems, weapons life extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval reactor design work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Kehler said during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. If further cuts are made, “we will have to go back and do what we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations,” the four-star general said. “Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I’m most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear weapons enterprise itself, some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force,” he said. “Our weapons are aging, and we face the continued erosion of the nuclear enterprise’s physical and intellectual capital.” Without investments for modernizing nuclear arms and infrastructure, “maintaining the long-term credibility and viability of the nation’s nuclear deterrent will not be possible,” Kehler said. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a former State Department arms control undersecretary, said he is very worried that deeper cuts will harm U.S. security.
Last week's leak from the Pentagon that the United States is considering reducing its nuclear arsenal from the 1,550 re- quired by the New START to as few as 300 provokes a critical question: Is the United States tempting fate with such drastic cuts? Because President Obama frequently states that one of his major objectives is to eliminate nuclear weapons, these cuts make very little difference. Unfortunately, the answer is yes, because nuclear weapons serve fundamentally important foreign- and defense-policy objectives. For the United States, nuclear weapons matter for purposes of deterrence and coercion - two of the major tools in the toolbox of the United States to advance and protect its interests. To serve these important and complicated ends, the United States must not cut its nuclear arsenal. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|