Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?

[1oldman2]

As if we don't have enough to worry about already, I hate to think where this is leading us.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/donald-trump-strengthen-expand-nuclear-capability/index.html

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump signaled Thursday that he will look to "strengthen and expand" the US's nuclear capability, tweeting just hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin called for enhancing his country's nuclear program.

Hours earlier in Moscow, Putin said in a defense speech in Moscow that Russia needs to "enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems."

And this from BBC.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027

 

[gleem]

Great. Start thinking about bomb shelters again. This will be my second time although maybe I better get farther away from DC.

 

[1oldman2]

Great. Start thinking about bomb shelters again.

This definitely could be a "Growth industry", Brings to mind the Twilight Zone episode "the Shelter".

maybe I better get farther away from DC.

If things go bad concerning this issue, I expect property values in the D.C. area to drop substantially.

 

[zoobyshoe]

From the first link:

The two leaders' remarks on the same day raised questions about the future of US-Russia relations and the prospects of the two powerful countries racing to improve their nuclear capabilities. Trump and Putin have suggested Trump's inauguration next month will ring in closer relations between the two countries, but both Trump and Putin have now each emphasized the need to strengthen their nuclear programs.

Everything I've read points to Putin being optimistic that Trump will be much easier to get along with than the Obama administration, and Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of. Therefore, I doubt these two separate announcements are the indicators of an unknown Trump vs Putin rivalry coming to light. Rather, I think Putin's announcement was aimed at neighboring NATO countries, and Trump's was aimed vaguely at the middle east and China. Alternatively, Trump's announcement may not have been aimed at any foreign country, but may only represent chest-thumping for the benefit of his hard-core supporters.

Unless some friction has arisen between Trump and Putin in some completely non-public communications between them, I think the timing of the two announcements might have been pure coincidence.

 

[gleem]

Putin should only need to fear NATO insofar as the US honors its commitments. So Trumps waffling on continued NATO support should have reduced some of Putin's concerns. The US has the most nukes of any country why should Trump think we need more? So this whole thing is a bit strange unless Putin is feeling out Trump's reaction to the idea of Russia augmenting its nuclear capability. Trump had better start talking to his advisers before he responds to provocative comments by other world leaders.

 

[mheslep]

... Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of. ...

Interview with NYT reporter Sanger in July:

SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——

TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the FC collection. Right, Trump's been fairly consistent in his NATO comments. The message to Europe again and again has been: pay up.

March 21 (CNN):

Trump: Yes, because it’s costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They’re going to have to put some up also. We’re paying disproportionately. It’s too much.
...
Blitzer: So you’re really suggesting the United States should decrease its role in NATO?

Trump: Not decrease its role but certainly decrease the kind of spending

March 21 (WAPO)

Charles Lane:... Tell me more, because it sounds like you want to just pull the U.S. out.

Trump: No, I don’t want to pull it out.
...

April 4

And the press, which is so totally dishonest, the press goes headlines the next day “Trump doesn’t want NATO, wants to disband.” That’s not what I said. I said you’ve got to pay your bills. ...

April 27

... The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves...

 

[Vanadium 50]

The US has the most nukes of any country

Actually, Russia has a few percent more. But in any event, if the appropriate response to Russia reducing its arsenal is for the US to do the same, what is the appropriate US reaction to Russia increasing its arsenal?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for the FC collection. Right, Trump's been fairly consistent in his NATO comments. The message to Europe again and again has been: pay up.

Yes but 'pay up' or what? 'Or we might have to let you defend yourselves'. Additionally, those interviews are peppered with his claim NATO has become obsolete, that the conditions under which it was created no longer exist. Therefore, even if they all did 'pay up,' he has laid out a second argument that might make the other moot if he wants to invoke it. In other words, Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of. "Fishy" in the sense of him not seeing any clear current benefit to the US of being a part of it.

Which is, of course, encouraging to Putin. Which makes it unlikely that Putin's announcement about enhancing Russia's nuclear capabilities was at all aimed at the US, as the article I quoted implied. And unlikely, in my mind anyway, that Trump's similar announcement had anything directly to do with Putin's. Coming as they did so closely in time there's a temptation to see one as having triggered the other. But for that to be true the whole broader context would have to have changed behind the scenes without the public being aware of it. That strikes me as unlikely.

 

[mheslep]

In other words, Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of.

<Shrug> That statement is contrary to his repeated statements in the transcripts above.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That statement is contrary to his repeated statements in the transcripts above.

It's kind of remarkable - Obama once said he was a "blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Trump serves the opposite function - people project their own fears and dislikes on him. Rather than focus on what he actually said, people seem to be thinking that whatever views they hold, Trump simply must hold the opposite. It will be interesting to read what historians write about this period in the future.

Getting back to the question at hand, the US SSBN fleet could carry, in principle, about 4000 warheads. This requires maxing out every boat and every missile. Today only about 17% of these "slots" are full. The same numbers from Russia are 1400 (charitably: with various missile and deliver problems, 700 or 800 is closer to the truth and 36% (or 70% when the issues are taken into account).

So if a new arms race is in the cards, the US could increase its second-strike capability by a factor of 6 almost immediately, whereas Russia is looking at a factor of 50% or so. Mid-term, the US could in 4 years place up to 6 more in service (uncovert the four SSGN boats plus build two more) if that were a national priority. On the other hand, the Russians' problems are technological - maybe they will solve them in 4 years, maybe they won't.

In either case, I don't think Russia sees that reigniting an arms race is likely to have a good outcome, at least over the horizon of the next few years.

 

[zoobyshoe]

<Shrug> That statement is contrary to his repeated statements in the transcripts above.

No it isn't.

It's kind of remarkable - Obama once said he was a "blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Trump serves the opposite function - people project their own fears and dislikes on him. Rather than focus on what he actually said, people seem to be thinking that whatever views they hold, Trump simply must hold the opposite.

No, what actually has happened many times is that Trump is so inarticulate and erratic that no one, including his supporters, can figure out what he meant to say. Witness the recent "drain the swamp" confusion with Newt Gingrich.

Today's Washington Post has a piece about his chaotic pronouncements:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.58e1058d7b22

But the mixed messages and erratic nature of his pronouncements have alarmed even some Republicans, who say it’s important to know how seriously to take the leader of the free world.

“We’re just operating in this world where you cannot believe the things he says,” said Eliot Cohen, a foreign policy expert and former George W. Bush administration official at the State Department. “It will have large consequences for our allies and our adversaries, and it’s going to greatly magnify the danger of miscalculation by all kinds of people.”

And:

Thomas Nichols, a U.S. Naval War College professor who is currently writing a book on U.S. nuclear policy, noted that Trump and his staff have now offered multiple explanations for what he meant in his nuclear weapons tweet.

“It’s worse than not having one explanation,” said Nichols, who said he was speaking in his personal capacity. “If you’re going to change policy, then that requires a kind of steely consistency and a lot of disciplined messaging.”

“We’re all spending a lot of time,” he added, “trying to devise the future of America’s nuclear policy out of 140 characters.”

 

[mheslep]

On the other hand, the Russians' problems are technological - maybe they will solve them in 4 years, maybe they won't.

If the photo of that Russian non-nuclear carrier belching smoke as steamed to the fight in Syria is indication of the current technical capability of their Navy, then "wont".

In either case, I don't think Russia sees that reigniting an arms race is likely to have a good outcome, at least over the horizon of the next few year

Yes, leaving one route for Russians to rationally expand their arsenal: give them the idea that the US will do nothing in response, as in Syria, that there would be no 'race' they could lose.

 

[mheslep]

No it isn't.

Evidence? With "No, I don't want to pull out" and "not decrease it's roll" you have a large burden of proof for your assertion that you know what's in his head, that Trump thinks '...NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of.' Trump has been ambiguous (as have many Presidents) and inarticulate on some subjects, but those NATO statements above are not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Then make it so with some evidence. With "No, I don't want to pull out"; "not decrease it's roll" you have a large burden of proof for your assertion, '...NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of.' Trump has been ambiguous (as have many Presidents) and inartuiculate on some subjects, but those NATO statements above are not.

First paragraph of my post #10 above. "pay up" or...

... The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves...

Our defending them is not a guarrantee. It is contingent upon them 'paying up.'

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Great. Start thinking about bomb shelters again. This will be my second time although maybe I better get farther away from DC.

We may escape the blast but what about what comes next? Maybe this site will help people understand the problem. For example, even a "limited" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be a disaster for everyone else. Notice they are talking about Hiroshima-size bombs in this scenario. The bombs in the American and Russian arsenals are much more powerful. They claim that a big USA vs Russia war would cause the eventual death of every human.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/

 

[russ_watters]

First paragraph of my post #10 above. "pay up" or...

Our defending them is not a guarrantee. It is contingent upon them 'paying up.'

I don't see how you could possibly be spinning that into the idea that he doesn't want to be in NATO. When a parent threatens to punish their kids, they don't WANT to hurt their kids, they want their kids to do the right thing. Clearly, here, Trump isn't saying he WANTS to leave NATO, he is saying he wants a NATO, where all countries contribute what they are legally required to instead of screwing relying on the US to do/pay for all the work.

At the same time, a mutual defense treaty where only one party is doing any of the work is "mutual" in name only and therefore doesn't actually mean anything.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see how you could possibly be spinning that into the idea that he doesn't want to be in NATO.

I'm not.

What I said was: "Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of." If you read the collected remarks of Trump on NATO at the site I linked to, you ought to be able to see that's a fair assessment. "Pay up," isn't Trump's only criticism of it, it's just the one mheslep pulled out by confirmation bias to make Trump seem more consistent and coherent on the subject than is actually true. Trumps other main objection, that NATO is obsolete, is a really big objection, but the conservatives in this thread have completely ignored it. As I said in an earlier post, the "obsolete" objection could be used by Trump to dump NATO in the future because it overrides the "pay up" objection. Additionally, he talks about the US having joined NATO back when we were a wealthier nation and maintains NATO is just too costly for us now. Then he mentions that NATO doesn't address terrorism. So, no, he doesn't seem comfortable with it at all to me. That's the only claim I made. I did not claim he wants to pull out.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can the title of this thread be changed? Proliferation means "more countries are getting nuclear weapons" not "the countries that already have them are deploying more"?

Edit: I can't believe I missed the opportunity to write this: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Robertphysics]

Slow down guys , politics always makes a heated debate but just a few things I feel I need to say here.

1) Trump is making remarks about NATO to serve only one purpose , to make the unhappy voter see that he cares more about his country and doesn't want American's to be "screwed over" as has supposedly happened before especially under Obama, and that is somewhat true , Obama's foreign policy was/is kind of weak , Iranians taking US citizens hostage and China stealing US drones as of recently so there are precedents and many other things.

2) Bit unfair from the US to say we as NATO members don't deserve to be helped out because when US needed our support for Iraq and Afghanistan we sent our troops , surely they needed us more to look better in the world than for real physical equipment but that is also a lot since going in alone would have seen much worse.
So we sent our boys and some of them died , is anybody paying up for them ? A bit disrespectful.
Also let's not kid anyone , eastern European countries serve a purpose for NATO and the US , a purpose which the pentagon won't let Trump screw over , that purpose is geopolitical tactical position as we are next to Russia itself. The US wants to have it's influence here as much as Putin wanted to save the military port of Crimea to himself.

That ship may smoke as hell as do many older diesel locos around here but nevertheless it's as simple as a hammer and goes until it dies and then is repaired or thrown to recycling , the sentiment about everything technology included is different here than in the west. I guess it's more about what each of us want to see and so we then edit our facts accordingly.As for the pay up question , well in the end sure Trump can go nuts and maybe even push through a complete NATO pullout but that would damage not only us in terms of Putin taking over Europe step by step but it would also in the end backfire and weaken the US. Loosing ones assets is not how you gain strength.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not.

What I said was: "Trump has repeatedly spoken of NATO as if it's some fishy organization that he's not comfortable being a part of."

Fair enough - I guess then I'll just have to let that go as something really weird to say that doesn't mean what it implies to me. ("not comfortable being a part of" /= wants to leave). I guess we're agreed then that Trump hasn't said he wants to leave NATO.

Trumps other main objection, that NATO is obsolete, is a really big objection, but the conservatives in this thread have completely ignored it.

Do you really disagree with the statement that NATO is obsolete?

And I'm fairly floored that his comments are even controversial. Do you really disagree that:
1. NATO is an organization created for and focused on defense against the USSR and doesn't necessarily work well for dealing with terrorism?
2. A treaty - any treaty - only works when all parties fulfill their obligations and it is unfair for one country - the USA - to do all of the work?

Maybe even more to the point, aren't Democrats supposed to be the isolationist/non-interventionist ones and Republicans the "hawks"?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Maybe even more to the point, aren't Democrats supposed to be the isolationist/non-interventionist ones and Republicans the "hawks"?

I doubt we will see any sort of consensus under a Trump administration.



I disagree that NATO is obsolete. I would have agreed in 1991, and pre-Crimea I would have argued strongly that the evolution of its mission needs to be better understood and planned: does its future look more like its traditional mission or more like the Gulf of Aden counter-piracy efforts? I would also have asked if it makes sense to admit the Baltic states. Post-Crimea, it appears that the new mission looks a lot like the old mission.

It's probably also worth mentioning, particularly given the title of this thread, that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for its territorial integrity being assured by Russia, the US and UK. Those assurances proved worthless, as one of the signatories annexed part of the Ukraine, and the other two watched it happen. That's a case where the US didn't follow through, and I think it's entirely reasonable for the NATO membership to ask "What will the US do if we are invaded?" In response is it not reasonable for the US to ask, "And what about your own obligations?" Perhaps even, ""And what about your own obligations, Latvia?" As Russ points out, a one-sided treaty doesn't work very well.

As pointed out by Chief Red Cloud: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it."

 

[1oldman2]

Proliferation means "more countries are getting nuclear weapons" not "the countries that already have them are deploying more"?

A valid point, my bad.

An excellent analogy.
As pointed out by Chief Red Cloud: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Fair enough - I guess then I'll just have to let that go as something really weird to say that doesn't mean what it implies to me. ("not comfortable being a part of" /= wants to leave).

This is the problem: Trump, himself, implies the kind of discomfort that sound like he's leading up to saying we should pull out, but then he stops. Then the interviewer prompts him to clarify:

Charles Lane Tell me more, because it sounds like you want to just pull the U.S. out.Blitzer: So you’re really suggesting the United States should decrease its role in NATO?

But Trump then denies we should pull out.

I guess we're agreed then that Trump hasn't said he wants to leave NATO.

Correct. In fact, he has specifically said he hasn't said that. He had to specifically say he hasn't said that because otherwise his remarks give the impression he's not comfortable being a part of it.

Do you really disagree with the statement that NATO is obsolete?

And I'm fairly floored that his comments are even controversial. Do you really disagree that:
1. NATO is an organization created for and focused on defense against the USSR and doesn't necessarily work well for dealing with terrorism?

2. A treaty - any treaty - only works when all parties fulfill their obligations and it is unfair for one country - the USA - to do all of the work?

The question is, do you really disagree that a person who asserts NATO is obsolete, that it doesn't address terrorism, and that it's members aren't pulling their weight, could be characterized as "uncomfortable being part of it"?

Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?

Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it...

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree that NATO is obsolete.

I don't want to split hairs because we're largely in agreement except perhaps for the word choice and what we fear/predict/believe are Russia's(Putin's) intentions.

I erred in my previous post when I said NATO was for defense against the USSR: it was created in defense against the Soviet Bloc, which no longer exists. As such, it doesn't extend east of Germany, so unless we're expecting/fearing Russian tanks are going to roll across Ukraine and Poland to get to Germany, what is NATO then for? You talk of our broken promise to Ukraine. That doesn't have anything to do with NATO unless you are arguing that NATO should be expanded to include Eastern Europe...which I might agree to. That would something like double the European land mass encompassed by NATO -- quite a large expansion. I recognize that Moscow is still the primary enemy, but I still think that's a far cry from what was, originally, NATO.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the problem: Trump, himself, implies the kind of discomfort that sound like he's leading up to saying we should pull out, but then he stops.

Er...so you did intend to imply that Trump thinks we should pull out? Please be clear, Zooby: do you think Trump wants to pull out of NATO or not?

The question is, do you really disagree that a person who asserts NATO is obsolete, that it doesn't address terrorism, and that it's members aren't pulling their weight, could be characterized as "uncomfortable being part of it"?

I will happily answer your questions after you answer mine. Conversations, like treaties, can't be one-sided.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Er...so you did intend to imply that Trump thinks we should pull out? Please be clear, Zooby: do you think Trump wants to pull out of NATO or not?

Recall what I was responding to:

Fair enough - I guess then I'll just have to let that go as something really weird to say that doesn't mean what it implies to me. ("not comfortable being a part of" /= wants to leave).

I was trying to explain why my assessment seemed "really weird" in the sense of not meaning what it seemed to imply. And that is because it was an encapsulation of Trump's 'really weird' remarks that seem to imply something, but apparently don't. I pass the cognitive dissonance on in my encapsulation without trying to sort out what he actually thinks because I don't see a clear way to do that.

I will happily answer your questions after you answer mine. Conversations, like treaties, can't be one-sided.

"What do you think of NATO?" is a question for another thread. What Trump thinks of NATO, however, is relevant in this thread because it informs what Putin thinks of Trump, which puts weight on one side or the other of whether we should see an arms race in the making here, or two announcements that are only coincidentally close in time. I think Putin would look at Trump's remarks on NATO and be encouraged that just about everything Trump says about it is negative. Therefore, he doesn't seem to me to have any incentive to start a game of nuclear chicken with Trump.

However, I could be wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

Can the title of this thread be changed? Proliferation means "more countries are getting nuclear weapons" not "the countries that already have them are deploying more"?

Edit: I can't believe I missed the opportunity to write this: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I was thinking much the same. However, from the CNN article, "comments by Putin, who is presiding over a project to restore Russia's lost global power and influence, and Trump, who will shortly become the US commander-in-chief, did not spell out exactly what each side is proposing or whether a major change of nuclear doctrine is in the offing." I think Trump responded hastily in a knee-jerk, or knuckle-jerk, reaction.

The discussion about NATO and Trump's thoughts on NATO are a separate subject.

 

[1oldman2]

I'm very pleased with the updated thread title, much more appropriate. (although "proliferation" is a huge future problem that word would have been better suited to another thread)

 

[mheslep]

The discussion about NATA and Trump's thoughts on NATO are a separate subject

Yes, though there has been substantial comment from Trump and team for months on NATO, and only 140 characters on nuclear weapons, making the thread superfluous if so restricted.

 

[1oldman2]

And the dance of words continues...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/europe/putin-russia-address/index.html

(CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin downplayed suggestions Friday there was a risk of a new nuclear arms race between Russia and the United States, shrugging off comments by US President-elect Donald Trump on Twitter as "nothing new."

Quoting Putin.
"I said that we are improving our nuclear capabilities, and that Russia is stronger (than) any potential aggressor. It (is) very important, I used that word, aggressor. I did not use it accidentally. Who is an aggressor? An aggressor is someone who can potentially attack Russia. So we are stronger than any potential aggressor."

And another quote that just may be relevant to the thread.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38409842

"Let it be an arms race because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all," MSNBC journalist Mika Brzezinski says the President-elect told her in a statement over the phone, in response to a question about his tweet from the day earlier.

 

[mheslep]

I disagree that NATO is obsolete

NATO is visibly useful for defense. The question of obsolescence goes to whether or not some other alliance structure could do a better job of defending the West than the one created post WWII. Is NATO a handy propeller driven aircraft in the age of jets? Often it seems, this kind of question does not get an unblinking, serious answer until after some cataclysmic war.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It may have been smarter to have scrapped NATO in 1991 and invented a new organization then, with a clear post-Cold War mandate. But that's not what we did, and it's what we have now.

Organizations often persist long after their original purpose is over. The March of Dimes was created in 1938 to end polio. Seventeen years later, there was a vaccine. Sixty-one years after that, The March of Dimes is still here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And the dance of words continues...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/europe/putin-russia-address/index.html

(CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin downplayed suggestions Friday there was a risk of a new nuclear arms race between Russia and the United States, shrugging off comments by US President-elect Donald Trump on Twitter as "nothing new."

Quoting Putin.
"I said that we are improving our nuclear capabilities, and that Russia is stronger (than) any potential aggressor. It (is) very important, I used that word, aggressor. I did not use it accidentally. Who is an aggressor? An aggressor is someone who can potentially attack Russia. So we are stronger than any potential aggressor."

And another quote that just may be relevant to the thread.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38409842

"Let it be an arms race because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all," MSNBC journalist Mika Brzezinski says the President-elect told her in a statement over the phone, in response to a question about his tweet from the day earlier.

These two follow up messages make it more likely this is Putin vs Trump nuclear chicken. Putin defines "aggressor" as "someone who can potentially attack Russia," which is distinct from saying someone who wants to attack Russia. You would expect "aggressor" to be limited to the latter category, but Putin is calling the mere ability to attack Russia an aggressive behavior. That sounds like a good foundation for an arms race.