Bad posture: Biden’s Nuclear Posture Review

Tom Unterrainer, Editorial Comments

In Æsop’s The Wild Boar and the Fox, Fox asks Boar why he spends so much time sharpening his tusks. Boar responds: “when danger does come there will not be time for such work as this. My weapons will have to be ready for use then, or I shall suffer for it.” Boars are known for their considerable aggression when faced with threat. What is less-often commented upon is their relatively high level of intelligence. In common with other members of the pig family, boars are brighter than your average animal.

There must be limits to what the boar thinks, perceives and calculates. Does the average boar ever stop to wonder what impact all this sharpening of tusks has on fellow-boars, who no doubt feel compelled to likewise sharpen their tusks? Does the average boar ever think that all that sharpening might make them more prone to damage or death? Do boars in general ponder the overall utility of extra-sharp tusks as contrasted to blunt tusks and a more peaceful approach to life? Æsop’s fox does not probe these weighty questions with the boar. The Wild Boar and the Fox insists that preparing for war is the best line of defence.

All of which brings us to President Biden’s much-delayed ‘Nuclear Posture Review’(NPR), where we read that the United States will:

“work with a sense of urgency to reduce the danger of nuclear war, which would have catastrophic consequences for the United States and the world. Developments in the security environment make these goals both more challenging and more pressing to pursue. However, we can only make progress in these respects if we are confident in the ability of our nuclear posture to deter aggression and protect our Allies and partners. Thus, for the forseeable future, nuclear weapons will continue to provide unique deterrence effects that no other element of U.S. military power can replace. To deter aggression and preserve our security in the current environment, we will maintain a nuclear posture that is responsive to the threats we face.”

2022 Nuclear Posture Review

It turns out that President Biden has one advantage over the boar: he recognises the “catastrophic consequences” of using his tusks. Nevertheless, the NPR persists in the fiction at the heart of the global nuclear order: that nuclear weapons are in some way a guarantor of security.

President Trump’s 2016 Nuclear Posture Review was met with justifiable alarm. It marked a significant shift from the standard narrative of nuclear doctrine, focussed on the alleged ‘deterrence’ capabilities of nuclear weapons, to speculation over the actual battle-field utility of such machines of megadeath. Trump was roundly condemned for asserting such a reckless and potentially deadly posture. Trump’s NPR went hand-in-hand with his deliberate sabotage and undermining of the series of agreements, treaties and initiatives – what END Info labelled a “Bonfire of the Treaties” – that drastically undermined the established nuclear order and left a vacuum of uncertainty and risk.

The most notable victim of Trump’s “bonfire” was the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which served to exclude a discrete range of ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons from the European continent and which, together with a series of other policies, helped to maintain the ‘nuclear peace’. As we wrote at the time of Trump’s sabotage:

If the INF Treaty arose, at least in part, from the campaign for a nuclear weapon-free zone in Europe, then it acted as an important instrument against the threat that Europe could become an actual ‘theatre’ of nuclear war. Such a function is an essential component of NWFZ proposals. It has been suggested that the INF Treaty, in combination with the START 1 Treaty and ‘Presidential Nuclear Initiatives’ signed in 1991 and the 1992 Lisbon Protocol, combined – to all intents and purposes – to create a NWFZ in the Baltic States, Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. This combination of states composed the ‘core group’ of a NWFZ proposed by Belarus in 1990. The states in the core group have no nuclear weapons deployed within their boundaries. With the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the INF Treaty, this arrangement is under severe threat.

‘Global Tinderbox’

The Spokesman 141

Since coming to office Biden has made no effort to re-initiate the INF Treaty, no effort to boost nuclear security in Europe and no effort to put in place measures to fulfill the main operative functions performed by the INF Treaty, which mirrored some of the functions of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone: reducing the threat of proliferation and confrontation.

Likewise, the Biden Administration could have re-initiated the JCPOA (Iran Deal) at an early stage but has not done so. Conversely, the US and Russia have agreed to extend the New Start Treaty – which aims to halve the number of strategic missile launchers – and have signalled a willingness to open negotiations on a similar treaty post-2026. If it is possible to come to an agreement on New Start, why not on the others?

Rather than seek to address these existing concerns or to work towards reducing sharply-posed nuclear risks resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden’s NPR maintains a striking similarity – in content, if not in tone – to the nuclear posture presented by Trump.

The main headlines from the NPR amount to a cancellation of Trump’s plans for a submarine-launched cruise missile and the retirement of the B83-1 nuclear gravity bomb. Controversially, Biden has chosen to retain the development of the W76-2 bomb which is considered to be a ‘useable’ nuclear device. During the Presidential election campaign, Biden described this bomb as a “bad idea”. Does he now think it’s a “good idea”? Also missing from the NPR is any change in posture to “sole use”, something which was much-discussed during the election campaign and in the early development of the NPR.

The US considers Russia, China, North Korea and Iran to be potential ‘nuclear adversaries’ and the NPR claims that in the:

“2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.”

The two “major nuclear powers” are Russia and China, the latter of which is addressed at length in the ‘National Defense Strategy’ which was published alongside the NPR.

We previously analysed Trump’s NPR and overall aggressive military posture as being linked to a developing global dynamic where United States dominance was steadily diminishing. We characterised Trump’s actions as a desperate and reckless attempt to maintain this dominance and to re-write ‘global rules’ to the longer-term advantage of the United States.

A sober view of Biden’s NPR would have to conclude that not a great deal has changed. The personality delivering the message may have changed but the overall message is the same: the United States will continue to act to maintain its global military dominance, it will involve NATO in such an effort and nuclear weapons and the threat of their use is a fundamental and indispensable element of the project.

This is important to note for obvious reasons – the greatly increased nuclear tensions we all face and the miserable, murderous events in Ukraine – but also in the context of the expanding nuclear bootprint in Europe, the nuclear policies and postures of US subordinates in NATO, the widespread remilitarisation underway and the global implications of all these things combined.

Also important is the terrible reality of the American political scene, where the return of Trump to the presidency – or a ‘Trump-like’ figure – is by no means out of the question. Such a prospect should surely concentrate minds and gives context to the deadly nuclear manoeuvres underway under the auspices of the Biden administration.