ICAN Germany, Flickr, Creative Commons
The most effective way to prevent a nuclear war with North Korea is to reassure them that the U.S. won’t strike first.
By Lisa Fuller / 11.29.2017
Former National Security Council DirectorĀ Peter FeaverĀ recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that āeven a single nuclear detonationā could ātrigger an escalatory spiral that would lead to civilization-threatening outcomes.ā
Two days later, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced aĀ billĀ that could therefore save civilization. The entirety of the No First Use bill reads: āIt is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.ā
The risk of nuclear war is at an all-time high, according to Former U.S. Secretary of DefenseĀ William PerryĀ and expertĀ Scott Sagan. Smithās bill could be one of the most effective ways to mitigate that risk. It would substantially reduce the likelihood that either the U.S. or North Korea would start a war, whether through a pre-meditated attack or as a result of miscalculation.
First, the policy would constrain the Trump administration from launching aĀ preventative nuclear strikeĀ on North Korea ā a scenario that has become a realistic possibility.
The problem isnāt only thatĀ nobody can stopĀ Trump from realizing hisĀ long standing desireĀ to use nuclear weapons. Itās also that Trumpās advisers may now be more likely to toss him the nuclear football than to pry it out of his hands.
Top administration officials ā including Secretary of StateĀ Rex Tillerson, CIA DirectorĀ Mike Pompeo, National Security AdviserĀ H.R. McMaster, Chief of StaffĀ John Kelly, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford ā have all voiced support for using a preemptive strike to prevent North Korea from developing the capacity to strike the continental U.S., even while acknowledging the āhorrificā ramifications.
AsĀ U.S. intelligenceĀ indicates that North Korea could attain such capabilities in early 2018, former U.S.Ā General Barry McCaffreyāsĀ predicts that weāll be at war by summer 2018. North KoreaāsĀ latest missile testĀ confirms that they are making rapid progress.
Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Edward Markey had enough foresight in January to introduceĀ other legislationĀ intended to prevent Trump from launching a pre-emptive strike. Unfortunately, their bill had too many loopholes to be reliable ā including an exception in the event of an āimminent threat.ā
Unfortunately, the restriction becomes impotent if the Trump administration uses āelastic definitions of the phrase āimminent threat,āā as the Cato InstituteāsĀ John Glaser puts it. Given Trumpās propensity forĀ stretching the truth, itās safe to assume that he considers definitions to be elastic as a general rule.
Smithās bill, in contrast, allows scant wiggle room. Unless we fall down the Orwellian rabbit hole into a world where āwar is peace and freedom is slavery,ā it will be difficult to falsely claim that North Korea dropped a nuclear bomb.
Of course, a U.S. pre-emptive strike isnāt the only way to start a war ā North Korea could also initiate hostilities. Smithās bill would reduce the likelihood of that scenario as well.
WhileĀ the CIAĀ andĀ independent expertsĀ agree that Kim Jong-un would only launch a pre-emptive attack if he believed that a U.S. offensive was imminent and unavoidable, the risk of miscalculation remains high. Misunderstandings and computer errors nearly led to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union onĀ at least seven occasionsĀ during the Cold War.
Given that U.S. and North Korea areĀ not even on speaking terms, the risk of miscalculation is even higher now. Even when Cold War tensions peaked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev were inĀ direct communication.
Plus, it would be understandable if Kim were feeling a little jumpy, given that the U.S. has deployed all of theĀ military assets neededĀ to launch an offensive over the last three months ā includingĀ aircraft carriers,Ā ships, andĀ submarinesĀ armed with missiles, as well asĀ bombers,Ā munitions, andĀ fighter jetsĀ ā and has beenĀ practicing large-scale attacksĀ off the Korean coast.
The most effective way to reduce the chances that Kim Jong-un will press the nuclear button would therefore be to convince him that the U.S. wonāt drop the first bomb.
Opponents of Smithās bill would likely claim that this strategy is counterproductive because itĀ undermines U.S. deterrence capabilities. However, asĀ Senator Ben CardinĀ points out, this argument is based on Cold War realities, and doesnāt apply to the North Korea crisis: UnlikeĀ the Soviet Union, North Korea doesnāt have the ability to obliterate U.S. nuclear assets in a first strike.
There is little reason to believe that the North Korea crisis will de-escalate if we continue on our current trajectory.Ā SanctionsĀ are unlikely to succeed,Ā diplomatic deadlockĀ has set in, and talks have ceased. Trump will continue to spout off threats and otherĀ dangerous rhetoricĀ as long as he retains the ability to speak or tweet, and he may wellĀ undermineĀ any serious attempts to restart diplomacy.
As long as Trump is in office, therefore, the No First Use bill is our best hope of preventing war.
Our survival may depend on it.
Originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus under a Creative Commons license.