4 ms·

"No first use" invites attack by anyone who has a stronger conventional military. This is one of those cases where ambiguity is the right course of action - if

by gozur88 10y ago

"No first use" invites attack by anyone who has a stronger conventional military. This is one of those cases where ambiguity is the right course of action - if you say "all our options are on the table, and we'll decide on a case-by-case basis" potential adversaries have to consider the possibility they'll lose even if they win. They're likely to be more circumspect.

rdtsc 10y ago
But since nobody has a stronger conventional military, this could be a good propaganda move -- because others can't say "well Americans are beligerant, they could nuke us any day without warning, look! it's right there in their military doctrine, so we have to seek nuclear technology to defend outselves.". This could also be a potential boost for military contractors since because now we need a stronger conventional military so more, tanks, bombers, drones, etc. If anyone asks why they can say "because our doctrine changed, so a bigger military means more peace".
- nickff 10y ago
  The Hawks say every change means they need larger and expensive armed forces, and the doves will come up with reasons why the same change requires disarmament. Such debates have not proven very productive.
vilhelm_s 10y ago
Yes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet union declared that they would not make a first use (because their conventional army was much stronger anyway). However, now the tables are turned, and NATO has more conventional forces than Russia. (And indeed, Russia changed policy and says that they would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack). Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use, so they can afford to change their formal policy to reflect that. At the same time, keeping the policy ambiguous has a cost, namely that the other side will feel more threatened, raising the risk of an accidental nuclear war. (C.f. Able Archer 83). Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. To give the maximal stability, everyone should adopt as restrictive a policy as possible (the ideal example is China, who rule out both first use and use against non-nuclear countries). Such a policy makes the weapons less "useful", in the sense that they only used to deter a nuclear attack and not for "getting away with" weaker conventional forces, but it is safer.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. I don't believe this is true. You lower the risk that an enemy will misinterpret something as a nuclear attack, but you raise the risk of getting involved in a conventional war that goes nuclear.
  - nickff 10y ago
    This is a very interesting (Bayesian?) point. Probability of enemy nuclear first strike decreased Probability of enemy conventional first strike increased Probability of enemy nuclear escalation ? I am only addressing policy effects on enemies because the policy may be an intentional lie.
- flukus 10y ago
  What's China's policy if, in a conventional war, someone starts attacking there nuclear facilities?
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Define nuclear facilities (reactors, launch silos?). Under MAD an attack on the nuclear capabilities of a nuclear armed state or any attempt at unilateral disarmament is usually defined as a nuclear attack/first strike. This often interpreted both indirect and indirect means which is why the ABM work the US is been doing over the years in Europe causes such a big mess with the Russians. The US spends trillion on missile defense, trillions that Russia cannot afford, so Russia is forced to spend it on improving their nuclear delivery capabilities. Russia restarting their investment in their nuclear arms made the US go and say "see Europe, we weren't just fear mongering, they are rearming you need our missile defense" which pushes the Russians even further.
    - flukus 10y ago
      I was thinking launch silos when I wrote it, but it's a deeper question now that I think of it. Could a conventional attack on a power plant and the fallout from it be considered a nuclear attack? What about a nuclear powered air craft carrier? Is an attack on a nuclear armed submarine, would they be considered an attack on their nuclear capabilities? The attacker might not even know what type of submarine it is.
chroma 10y ago
Yes, "no first use" means a nuclear state can be stymied in conventional proxy wars. That's an acceptable trade-off, since it limits escalation. Better to lose a proxy war than to "win" a nuclear exchange. Also, only an insane attacker would test the limits of "no first use" by invading a nuclear state's sovereign territory. If there's any time to renege on such a policy, that's it. Not to mention: if an enemy invades, your nukes are at risk of falling into their hands.
- yks 10y ago
  Recent events show that "sovereign territory" is a somewhat fluid notion.

by gozur88 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

But since nobody has a stronger conventional military, this could be a good propaganda move -- because others can't say "well Americans are beligerant, they could nuke us any day without warning, look! it's right there in their military doctrine, so we have to seek nuclear technology to defend outselves.". This could also be a potential boost for military contractors since because now we need a stronger conventional military so more, tanks, bombers, drones, etc. If anyone asks why they can say "because our doctrine changed, so a bigger military means more peace".

nickff 10y ago
The Hawks say every change means they need larger and expensive armed forces, and the doves will come up with reasons why the same change requires disarmament. Such debates have not proven very productive.

vilhelm_s 10y ago

Yes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet union declared that they would not make a first use (because their conventional army was much stronger anyway). However, now the tables are turned, and NATO has more conventional forces than Russia. (And indeed, Russia changed policy and says that they would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack). Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use, so they can afford to change their formal policy to reflect that. At the same time, keeping the policy ambiguous has a cost, namely that the other side will feel more threatened, raising the risk of an accidental nuclear war. (C.f. Able Archer 83). Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. To give the maximal stability, everyone should adopt as restrictive a policy as possible (the ideal example is China, who rule out both first use and use against non-nuclear countries). Such a policy makes the weapons less "useful", in the sense that they only used to deter a nuclear attack and not for "getting away with" weaker conventional forces, but it is safer.

gozur88 10y ago
>Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. I don't believe this is true. You lower the risk that an enemy will misinterpret something as a nuclear attack, but you raise the risk of getting involved in a conventional war that goes nuclear.
- nickff 10y ago
  This is a very interesting (Bayesian?) point. Probability of enemy nuclear first strike decreased Probability of enemy conventional first strike increased Probability of enemy nuclear escalation ? I am only addressing policy effects on enemies because the policy may be an intentional lie.
flukus 10y ago
What's China's policy if, in a conventional war, someone starts attacking there nuclear facilities?
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Define nuclear facilities (reactors, launch silos?). Under MAD an attack on the nuclear capabilities of a nuclear armed state or any attempt at unilateral disarmament is usually defined as a nuclear attack/first strike. This often interpreted both indirect and indirect means which is why the ABM work the US is been doing over the years in Europe causes such a big mess with the Russians. The US spends trillion on missile defense, trillions that Russia cannot afford, so Russia is forced to spend it on improving their nuclear delivery capabilities. Russia restarting their investment in their nuclear arms made the US go and say "see Europe, we weren't just fear mongering, they are rearming you need our missile defense" which pushes the Russians even further.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I was thinking launch silos when I wrote it, but it's a deeper question now that I think of it. Could a conventional attack on a power plant and the fallout from it be considered a nuclear attack? What about a nuclear powered air craft carrier? Is an attack on a nuclear armed submarine, would they be considered an attack on their nuclear capabilities? The attacker might not even know what type of submarine it is.

chroma 10y ago

Yes, "no first use" means a nuclear state can be stymied in conventional proxy wars. That's an acceptable trade-off, since it limits escalation. Better to lose a proxy war than to "win" a nuclear exchange. Also, only an insane attacker would test the limits of "no first use" by invading a nuclear state's sovereign territory. If there's any time to renege on such a policy, that's it. Not to mention: if an enemy invades, your nukes are at risk of falling into their hands.

yks 10y ago
Recent events show that "sovereign territory" is a somewhat fluid notion.