It was recently reported that the Biden administration in Washington has made major adjustments to U.S. nuclear policy, emphasizing the need to respond to “multiple nuclear-armed adversaries” and maintain a “flexible and responsive” nuclear arsenal. In a speech on Aug. 1, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Vipin Narang said that the United States is in “a new nuclear age.”
The administration’s move to adapt to this has drawn much attention from the international community. At a time when the global security situation is increasingly unstable, the changes will undoubtedly lead to new security dilemmas.
While the international security situation is becoming increasingly complex, the status of nuclear weapons as the main deterrent has not fundamentally changed. In recent years, with technological progress and related military applications, warfare has obviously taken on new features. Ongoing conflicts between states and war scenarios in various emerging domains, such as cyberspace and outer space, are changing the traditional forms of war but have not yet fundamentally changed the role of nuclear weapons in war gaming. Nuclear deterrence, in particular, still has significant weight in international security and interstate confrontation. This is because the lethality and destructiveness of nuclear weapons, and the fact that they have been used in a war, underpin their deterrent effect.
None of the emerging military technologies or capabilities, such as unmanned assets, intelligent technologies and hyper-sonic systems, have demonstrated such effective destructive power in actual use. In this connection, despite increased attention to the technical capabilities, no deterrent effect similar to that of nuclear weapons will be available in the near term. Hence, nuclear weapons have a special status that is different from other military capabilities and that will continue.
As nuclear weapons and deterrence continue to exist, strategic adjustments by a nuclear-armed power will aggravate existing security dilemmas and trigger new ones. As the leading nuclear-weapons state, the U.S. with its recent move is bound to have a major impact on the international security situation.
The new nuclear strategy has been designed to respond to “an unprecedented mix of multiple revisionist nuclear challengers” and involves “a more competitive approach” based on assumptions of coordinated adversarial behavior, limited use and failed arms control efforts. Obviously the U.S. now has reached a fundamentally different conclusion on the security dynamics in the nuclear field and has begun to shift from the traditional balance between deterrence and arms control to a tougher and more offensively oriented nuclear policy.
Historically, there has been a sustained effort since the end of the Cold War to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security. The Obama administration even proposed a “nuclear-weapon-free world.” In contrast, the strategic adjustment by the Biden administration in response to “a new nuclear age” is undoubtedly subversive. The Trump administration also stressed the need to further develop America’s nuclear forces. With bipartisan agreement, the new nuclear age proposition has killed the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons.
The American adjustment will impact the fragile global strategic balance and trigger a vicious cycle featuring both an arms race and security deterioration. The elevation of nuclear weapons in its strategy and the noisy deployment of intermediate-range missiles have driven up security concerns for many countries. The nuclear shadow now appears from time to time in various real and potential war scenarios, something that did not happen for many years after the end of the Cold War. Given policy uncertainties in the U.S., even allied countries under the American nuclear umbrella are hearing more calls for pursuing their own nuclear weapons.
The Economist commented that America’s extended deterrence for its allies may become extended uncertainties. In addition, along with major developments in the nuclear field, some Americans and Europeans have begun to champion stronger missile defense systems. The Republican Party platform includes a promise to build an “Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged to create a European air defense shield. Elevating the status of nuclear weapons and focusing on missile defense seems to imply a return of the Cold War mentality in international arms control.
Undoubtedly, these are clear manifestations of a security dilemma in which measures taken by one country to increase its own security also increase the sense of insecurity for others, thus triggering a vicious cycle. Moreover, as the deployment of nuclear weapons will require more investment than the deployment of conventional weapons, U.S.-driven arms races in the nuclear and related fields will lead to additional difficulties for concerned countries trying to balance security with development. And that presents a systemic security dilemma.
