What "major wars" do you cite that we've fought since World War 2? We haven't fought a single war of existential threat to ourselves or a close ally since World War 2. We also haven't fought a war with the same number of casualties since World War 2. Russia, Britain, France, India, and Pakistan haven't (really) either. The nuclear arsenal has liberated them of the worry of existential threats. The irony of that is that it encourages skirmishes, so there are more small-scale fights, or fights against non-state actors, or fights between two disproportionate states when the stronger is seeking to expand its sphere of influence (US: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia: Georgia).

Before 1945, we would have fought wars with Russia and China already. I think your comparison either has a very grandiose view of today's wars or a very minimalistic view of wars of the past. To compare the world wars to something like Iraq seems very incorrect.

Yet if nuclear weapons were somehow disinvented, it is not obvious that this event would have any discernible effect on our conventional military posture, especially given the absence of a true "peer competitor."

It isn't? Without nukes, the incentives to build up conventional force would be much stronger in the case of states like China, since they could risk a wider range of potential conflicts with the US and other countries in East Asia.

But nobody in power seems to think that a nuclear deterrent is sufficient to protect the country, or even to significantly reduce other defense or security requirements.

It depends on what you define as "protect the country". The US, for example, could drastically cut back on conventional military spending and commitments abroad to re-build a defense around the use of nukes, which would secure the homeland but raise issues about what would happen to the states that are economically and politically intertwined with us.

There have been times when the US had a much more nuclear-oriented defense strategy, Eisenhower's "New Look" policy being the main example.

A handful of survivable weapons makes it very unlikely that another state will attack you directly or try to invade and take over your country. That's about it. And states certainly don't need thousands of warheads in order to obtain these effects.

The key word is "survivable" weapons. You need a lot of them, since

1. A potential aggressor will be targeting your nukes if they are launching an all-out strike;

2. Not all of your nukes will reach their targets.

This is particularly a problem with ICBMs. They can't be called back, which means that the incentives are to either do a full strike to be sure if you think the enemy is certainly about to attack, or wait out their strike so you can do a full response. The latter requires a lot of missiles scattered over the place (hundreds, thousands), so that they can't all be destroyed in the initial strike.

The US might be still be able to capture that effect with a smaller supply of warheads . . . provided that those warheads are carried on bombers and nuclear submarines. A good missile defense system would help as well, by further reducing the damage that a US second-strike capability would take (allowing us to reduce the number of warheads further), and by offering a way to prevent an accidental launch from turning into either a massive tragedy or all-out nuclear war.

It seems clear that Brodie's crystal ball was only partially accurate, but that partial accuracy is important nonetheless. Why he thought it would transform international politics itself is beyond me, and I am rather surprised to hear a self-professed Realist suggesting that he believed that. After all, if you take Morgenthau seriously, and I have to assume you do, then political behavior is rooted in human nature, which pretty much by definition is immutable. Now, Morgenthau's description of human nature is rather narrow, in particular in its failure to take ideas and ideology seriously, but you yourself do so (with your Balance of Threat extension of Realism) without seeming to think that fundamentally repudiates the core tenets of Realism.

The more relevant question is this: how many major conventional wars have been fought between nuclear armed opponents? You would have to fudge the definition of "major" to come up with any, though there have been limited wars (USSR v. China on the Ussuri River; India v. Pakistan a couple of times in Kashmir) and proxy wars (various between US and Soviet Union). None of them were even close to being existential struggles, though. When was the last time there was a 65 year period lacking such struggles between Great Powers?

Another question: when was the last time a nuclear state was subject to major conventional aggression? Again, you'd have to fudge the definition of "major" a bit to come up with any instance. Maybe the Yom Kippur war qualifies, but the scope of the attacks were limited and it is unclear whether Israel had a meaningful nuclear arsenal at that time. Other than that, the only aggression against nuclear states has been limited or by non-state actors (various terrorist attacks).

These are very important patterns, because they are so distinctive. The lack of Great Power war (or any prospect of near future major war) is noteworthy, and is at least partially due to the nuclear arsenals of the key Great Powers. That being said, why anyone would believe that nuclear weapons would affect relations between non-nuclear powers, or would prevent a nuclear power from aggressing or intervening against a non-nuclear power is beyond me.

Given the qualitative escalation that going nuclear entails, and the strongly negative reactions such an action would generate, it is clear that there is and will remain a lot of room for international politics short of major wars involving nuclear powers.

On the build up of conventional forces, that's rather easily explained by one thing. Even if you have nuclear weapons there are still going to be areas that you need to project power in without risking the annihilation of the world. The U.S learned that in the 50s and the Soviets learned that in the 60s.

On the security dilemma, note that wars between India and Pakistan have mostly been brief affairs, especially since the obtained nuclear weapons. Instead both seem to focus more on supporting separatists and militants. At the least nuclear weapons have certainly changed the weapon of choice for many nations (including the U.S and the Soviet Union).

"I believe the presence of nuclear weapons was one of the factors that kept the Cold War from heating up."

One of the factors? How much of a factor? 30%, 50%, 10%, 5%? Whatever the number is (personally I believed the presence of nuclear weapons was the major reason that the Cold War never turned hot) I think that demonstrates they had more than a limited value

And they will continue to have a good deal of value, despite our conventional military spending. As Max Boot eloquently points out in a recent article, the amount of money we are currently spending on the military is at historic lows and set to go lower.

A lot of states are also ambivalent about their own nuclear arsenals because the entire subject of nuclear weapons has become a taboo subject. In today's global environment, it's difficult to talk about the offensive use of nuclear weapons in wartime without being labeled as a "rogue element" or "a danger" to the international system. The assured destruction of nuclear weapons even gives governments pause before they even think about using them in a defensive manner as well.

The taboo nature of nuclear weapons is weakening deterrence as a concept. In order for deterrence to work, threats have to be credible. Adversaries actually have to believe that you will use the weapons if the time comes. If the threat isn't credible, then the thousands of weapons that the U.S, Russia, and Israel have at their disposal is meaningless in a strategic sense and a financial waste.

Judge deterrence by this question: With the exception of a nuclear attack, does anyone hear think the U.S. would respond to a danger with the use nuclear weapons?

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

Why does FP give this guy a platform to spread his leftist BS?

""""And it's not just the United States that seems to have so little confidence in i ts own deterrent. Israel has by most accounts a sizeable nuclear arsenal of its own, and a clear "second-strike capability" against any possible foe. Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned about future threats along Israel's "Eastern front," a position linked to the demand that a future Palestinian state be demilitarized and that Israel retain control of the Jordan River Valley. Israel developed nuclear weapons to enhance its security (a perfectly understandable decision), but having the bomb hasn't made it feel any safer or reduced its perceived security "requirements," even against conventional military forces.""""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Israel developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s, after US failed to sell hawk-missiles Israel while they sold them to Egypt.

It was not to "enhance" its security - it was to ensure Israel's survival in the face of 6 Arab armies.

Israel never used it's nuclear weapons, but without them the Arabs would not have a detterent to avoid conventional warfare.

The US phoned Jordanian leaders in 1973, telling them Israel was about to go nuclear - without this call it is unlikely the Arabs would have retreated following US re-supply.

Walt downplays Israel's legitimate fears of protecting its own sovereignty and of course says shit about Iran.

I hate this guy.

Don't be such a girl. I responded to his BS without buzzwords and pseudo-"realism."

Walt is an expert in ad hominem attacks.

Walt wrote: "According to the logic of the 'nuclear revolution,' therefore, states with second-strike capabilities were secure against attack and didn't need to worry very much about their sovereignty or independence."

On a theoretical level, the logic of the nuclear revolution is attractive and valid, but on an empirical level we see that the effects of the nuclear revolution are more nuanced and ambiguous than the theory lets on. First, we observe that nuclear weapons, even secure second-strike capabilities, do not deter attacks on secondary (i.e., non-vital) interests. Note, for example, the 1973 attack on the territories occupied by Israel, and the skirmishes on the Sino-Soviet border. The aggressor states in these cases did not seem to judge the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible given their limited objectives. Even the United States did not respond to attacks on its homeland and citizens with nuclear strikes against al Qaida forces in Afghanistan. Once a state uses its nuclear weapons in response to attacks that do not threaten to eradicate its independence or its regime, then the credibility of nuclear threats might increase across the system, and potential aggressors might be more easily deterred from pursuing even limited objectives.

Second, because great powers (1) tend to define their national security interests beyond the confines of their national territories, and (2) they refuse to use nuclear weapons to achieve their objectives in peripheral conflicts, they continue to field highly capable conventional forces even as they deploy secure second-strike forces. In order to abstain from building large conventional forces, the great powers would have to reduce their overseas commitments and define their core national interests more narrowly than they do today.

Third, because deterrence is in the eye of the beholder, a great power cannot be 100 percent confident that an adversary, such as a near peer or peer competitor, will be deterred by the same capabilities that would deter the great power itself. The United States, for example, might be deterred by a small nuclear arsenal, such as the handful of nuclear devices that North Korea might have, but other states might not be deterred by the threat of strikes against several of its major cities. Moreover, it is axiomatic that counterforce strikes should not deter a state that has secure second-strike forces.

For this reason, in my humble opinion, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union fielded thousands of nuclear weapons designed specifically for battlefield use. In the case of the United States, the requirement to enhance the credibility of its nuclear commitment to its NATO allies meant that it had to deploy nuclear weapons on European soil. The threat to strike the Soviet Union with U.S.-based nuclear weapons following a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was not seen as credible in the eyes of many U.S. and European observers. Why would the United States put its cities at risk of a Soviet retaliation for the sake of Bonn and London? To demonstrate its resolve to escalate violence to the nuclear level, the United States judged that it had to deploy nuclear weapons outside of the continental United States to threaten Soviet frontline forces. States might find it easier to first use nuclear weapons against enemy forces outside their country than on the aggressor country's homeland.

Great (nuclear) powers do not have to worry as much about their sovereignty and independence as they did prior to obtaining nuclear weapons, but given their expansive interests, they will not judge small nuclear arsenals consistent with a minimum deterrent posture to be satisfactory. Watch China's nuclear weapons growth as a test case.

Steve, you could take the argument even further. The hairtrigger nature of nuclear conflict actually puts leaders in even MORE sensitive positions when considering questions of war and peace. The Boris Yeltsin incident of the 1990's (not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis) abundantly illustrate this point. Nukes should be gotten rid of completely. Deterrence doesn't work in conditions of uncertainty--which was present in the cases I cited. It works even less when terrorists (empowered by states) can amplify that uncertainty by using dirty bombs, etc. What if Tel Aviv is hit by a dirty bomb one day? Deterrence is supposed to promote stability and certainty. Such an event would promote instability and uncertainty. What happens then? I agree with you that the Cold War was tamed by deterrence, but that era has ended and a new paradigm is desperately needed. You are right that a nuclear-free world should be a step by step goal, but it should happen SOON.

"Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned about future threats along Israel's "Eastern front," a position linked to the demand that a future Palestinian state be demilitarized and that Israel retain control of the Jordan River Valley."

I thought Netanyahu said Israel was ready to talk peace with 'no preconditions'. Sure sounds like preconditions to me.

The nuclear pandora could have been kept in its box, saved only for select countries that understaood the grave responsibilities that went in not only possessing them, but making sure more countries didn't. Too late...once Pakistan and India got the bomb, any thoughts of containment went out the window.

Thank you Canada for giving India a CANDU reactor, which it then used to kickstart its nuke weapons programme, and thank you Dick Cheney for doing a deal with the devil that allowed Pakistan into the club.

I would guess that we need a deterrent against other countrys’ nukes, and we need conventional forces for conventional threats. Building those kinds of forces is what we have always done and ----uh; it seems like, therefore, that is what we will always do.

Both are irrelevant to either threats or ambitions that are currently important or will be important for the foreseeable future. Take for example, how much influence China is gaining. China has much more influence in Pakistan and Central Asia than we have. China does not have one overseas military base, but China knows how to collaborate with leaders at various levels in foreign countries.

We do not have those skills and Secretary Gates makes that pretty clear in his recent Foreign Affairs article.

We need significant capacity building in dealing with foreign cultures and social/business/political structures. If we do not learn about this kind of capacity building, we will become less and less relevant to international politics even though we may continue to be a destructive force without obtaining our desired results.

Bob Spencer

This really is an unremarkable post by Walt. Does knowing how to really score a mean shot to the nuts off-set knowing how to fight? Does having a guns stop fist fights? Nukes are but a tool, applicable for certain tasks.

We're seeing, but out of sight in top secret facilities, new development in Nukes. While a "critical mass" is required for a nuclear event, scientists are developing nukes for bunker busting and certainly downsizing these as much as possible. Such a coarse tool as nukes should be, and are banned. They can only be justified as a last resort defense.

Ultimately, nukes are a tool of air power. They can't hold territory, enforce embargoes, be used on the home front. There are still shovels and great earth movers. One tool doesn't obviate others.

Not sure about your logic here: What nuclear armed state has been directly attacked by another state?

I think Prof Walt has set up a straw man with this article. Where in Jervis' writings does he anticipate the demise of conventional military requirements in the face of a nuclear deterrent?

In any case, this idea that we are going to convince other nations that obtaining nukes isnt worth the cost or whatever is laughable on its face. If that was the case, I suppose the US Russia and China would have gotten rid of theirs a long time ago. If Iran obtains nukes, think about the constraints that will place on US and Israel's actions vis-a-vis that regime. It is a talisman of great power prestige, and no amount of diplomacy is going to change that.

Correction:

Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, not 2nd largest as Prof. Walt wrote in this piece.

AR, Incorrect, the dissolution of the Soviet empire diminished their stockpiles substantially. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Kirkland Air Base in Albuquerque NM, if it seceded would have been the 3rd Nuke power in the world. You could be right, but the entire history of the Cold War saw us hype up Soviet power beyond reality. There were just a few moment where if we were to have it out the Soviets would have stood a chance. It would have been to costly to try, but that's the calculus. Nukes make full scale attacks too costly so long as they can be delivered.

"And given the obscenities that freedom of action has enabled (hundreds of thousands of dead innocents in Iraq, ongoing Israeli colonial expansion and murderous military aggression, ......) - the world desperately needs an Iranian nuclear deterrent."

LOL que?

World needs an Iranian nuclear deterrent?

Why is the Left so pussy-wipped by racist, apartheid regimes like Iran? You oppose Israel yet support Iran's nuclear program, Iran - prolific sponsor of terrorism, kills Bahis and oppresses women, threats the destruction of sovereign nations and historic US allies (direct violation of the UN charter)...you think a nuclear Iran would bring more stability to the region?

You are delusional. A nuclear Iran would make the Arab states go nuclear because they hate Iran, and certainly terminate any Israeli-Arab peace process because all the attention would go on dealing with Iran.

Personally, I'd like to see Israel get hit with the min-nuke, just to shut up the fucking leftists.