Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Why the United States Should Lead
Report: Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Why the United States Should Lead
Author: George Perkovich
Institution: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Date: October 2008
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE REPORT.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Brief summarizes four security interests that would be served by making the long-term project of abolishing nuclear weapons a central purpose of U.S. policy: preventing proliferation; preventing nuclear terrorism; reducing toward zero the unique threat of nuclear annihilation; and fostering optimism regarding U.S. global leadership.
Preventing Nuclear terrorism
What is needed most in this domain is greater political will and sustained attention of high-level officials. It is tempting for working-level officials in states whose cooperation is sought by the United States to seek concessions on other issues. The next U.S. administration will have to raise these issues to the cabinet or head-of-state level, where its counterparts will not want to look indifferent or mercantile in matters of such dire consequence. A clearer commitment to the goal of nuclear disarmament would not be decisive here, but it could help.
Eliminating the Threat of Nuclear Annihilation
As long as nuclear weapons remain, deterrence will need to be managed with great care. It is indefensible to prefer an international order based heavily on threats to use nuclear weapons over an alternative in which these weapons are collectively reduced to very low numbers and salience.
Fostering Optimism in U.S. Global Leadership
The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons does not make its attainment feasible, let alone inevitable. Nuclear disarmament and resolution of political–security conflicts would have to proceed together in a reciprocating, co-evolutionary process. Early steps - nuclear arms reductions, implementation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and universal adoption of the Additional Protocol—would improve political dynamics and confidence between nuclear-armed and non–nuclear weapon states.
Summary Points:
- The next American president should emphasize the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and really mean it.
- The verification and enforcement mechanisms that would be required to achieve this would augment U.S. and global security at a time when the nuclear industry will likely expand globally.
- Without a clearer commitment to the elimination of all nuclear arsenals, non–nuclear-weapon states will not support strengthened nonproliferation rules, inspections, and controls over fissile materials.
- The accounting and control over nuclear materials that would be necessary to enable nuclear disarmament would greatly reduce risks that terrorists could acquire these materials.
- If nuclear deterrence would work everywhere and always, we would not worry about proliferation. If nuclear deterrence is not fail-safe, the long-term answer must be to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons to zero.
RSS Feed