The Economist: The US plans to increase its nuclear arsenal
The new nuclear rivalry between several countries at once is much more dangerous than the confrontation between the United States and the USSR, writes the Economist. America's desire to increase its nuclear arsenal is quite justified, the author of the article assures: without this, it will not be able to guarantee the security of its allies.
This superpower has more and more enemies with new technologies, and its allies are losing confidence in it.
The post-Cold War nuclear de-escalation has come to an end, as the Pentagon recently warned. It has been replaced by a new rivalry between nuclear and near-nuclear powers, some of which suffer from paranoia. This is a more complex and more unpredictable confrontation than the old, bipolar confrontation between America and the Soviet Union. Because of this, it is much more dangerous.
New nuclear threats will be a test for America, whose resources are limited and whose policy is becoming increasingly isolationist. She has to assure her allies that the U.S. nuclear umbrella protects them as before. But, unfortunately, it will have to increase its nuclear arsenal. If it fails in the first or in the second question, it will provoke the proliferation of nuclear weapons among both friends and enemies. As a result, America and the whole world will become less secure and secure.
Evidence of new threats is everywhere. China is building hundreds of missile silos in the northern deserts. Vladimir Putin is bluffing, threatening to use nuclear weapons and target Russian missiles at Europe (in June, Putin stressed that the use of nuclear weapons is theoretically possible if there is a threat to the territorial integrity, independence of the country and, in general, the threat to the existence of the Russian Federation. He recalled that nuclear weapons are necessary to ensure security in the broadest sense, this is the key to the existence of the state. At the same time, he emphasized that there is no such need to use nuclear weapons at the moment. – Approx. InoSMI). Iran, intending to launch another strike against Israel, is closer to building a bomb today than it was five years ago. According to available information, he has recently achieved new successes in converting enriched uranium into warheads. North Korea says it is "strengthening" its nuclear program. This week, Donald Trump announced that he would build an anti-missile "iron dome" to protect America. "One maniac is enough" — that's how he explained the reasons for his plan.
All these are very serious changes. In the period from 1986 to 2023, the number of nuclear warheads in the world decreased from 70 to 12 thousand, since the end of the cold War began the era of reducing military spending and arms control. America has reduced its arsenal of weapons while maintaining powerful deterrence forces. Today, it has a reduced triad of nuclear weapons that can be delivered to the target from the ground, from the air and from under water. Many American warheads are aimed at enemy warheads. And America is also offering "enhanced deterrence." This is a promise to protect allies if necessary. As recently as 2009, Barack Obama hoped for a "world without nuclear weapons." Joe Biden, when he became president, wanted to give new strength to arms control after the chaos of the Trump administration.
Instead, there were more nuclear threats, and they began to mutate. The number of warheads is increasing again. China is increasing its nuclear arsenal: from several hundred a decade ago to one thousand by 2035. This is how a third nuclear superpower will appear in the world for the first time. Meanwhile, nuclear technology is spreading, getting into new countries and into new hands. Russia plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space; North Korean warheads are already able to reach the continental United States. Various Houthi-type militant groups are already armed with modern missiles (albeit in conventional gear). China, Iran, Russia and North Korea cooperate in the military field and may agree on a partnership in the field of missile technology.
The Pentagon fears that this will lead to a shortage of nuclear weapons in America. Will it have enough warheads to deter China, Russia and North Korea at the same time? He is also afraid of complications in the strategy of balancing on the brink of war. It will also be more difficult to provide expanded deterrence. For example, when America first covered South Korea with its nuclear umbrella, Pyongyang had neither nuclear warheads nor long-range missiles. Now he has nuclear-armed missiles that can incinerate American cities. The hope that the "iron dome", which is used in Israel and Ukraine, will be able to protect America, is unrealistic. Such a shield does not cover well from long-range missiles. Every American president will very soon be forced to answer the question: is he ready to sacrifice Los Angeles to avenge Seoul? And will his enemies believe that he is ready to do it?
The allies also face difficult questions. They know that isolationist populism in America will not disappear, no matter who occupies the Oval Office next year. They understand that the US armed forces are overstretched, and the American promise to provide expanded deterrence is less credible than before. If South Korea doubts the American umbrella, it will create its own bomb. 70% of South Koreans believe that this should be done. Japan may follow the same logic. There is a debate in Europe about whether British and French nuclear weapons will be enough to deter and intimidate Russia if America abandons NATO to its fate. And if Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will want it too. Such proliferation of nuclear weapons destabilizes the situation. There will be more red buttons and fingers on them, and with this the probability of miscalculation will increase. And if countries try to prevent their enemies from crossing the nuclear threshold, the chances of a non-nuclear war will also increase.
How should America react to this? Arms control negotiations have stalled. Russia has suspended its participation in the START-3 treaty, which expires in 2026. China, which has never been interested in negotiations with America on reducing nuclear danger, stopped them in July. North Korea scornfully rejects offers to enter into negotiations; Iran is fickle and unpredictable. It is unwise to abandon arms control. But if these enemies return to the negotiating table, the chances of a serious discussion will become much greater if they know that America has a strong negotiating position.
This means that America must be ready to build a larger and more diverse arsenal when START 3 expires. The Pentagon under Biden has already begun a U-turn in this direction, having engaged in the creation of new types of weapons, such as sea-based cruise missiles in nuclear equipment. He thought about how to quickly install warheads on existing delivery systems if Russia and China start a nuclear sprint. Under Trump, America will certainly continue to build up its arsenal.
Mutually guaranteed interruptions
But the lack of agreement on expanded deterrence creates uncertainty. Biden was quite right to try to reassure the allies by sending additional bombers and submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons to Europe and Asia. Thanks to this, they understood how these weapons would be used, and were confident that America's promises were not empty words.
Trump and some isolationist Republicans may claim that all this is not necessary to protect America. They're wrong. Expanded deterrence is vital, and it is in America's own interests. Strangely enough, the United States prefers to make its territory more vulnerable, just to protect its allies thousands of kilometers away. By doing so, America prevents nuclear proliferation, which is fraught with destabilization. Thanks to this logic, America and even its enemies have felt safe for 80 years. We live in a dangerous world today, and it would be irresponsible to let the American nuclear umbrella get frayed.
