Trump’s stance on nuclear restraint is ambiguous

Questions about the circumstances in which the United States might use a nuclear weapon have resurfaced in recent months, as Trump opponents have openly expressed fear that he would use them unwisely, unleashing nuclear hell.

“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” Hillary Clinton said in her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.

Two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Ted W. Lieu of California and Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, said Tuesday they had introduced a bill that would prohibit the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress.

But Thomas Mahnken, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said he hopes Obama does not choose to adopt a “no first use” policy.

“Potentially it would be a president in the waning months of his administration seeking to tie the hands of his successor,” he said.

The administration in 2010 considered but rejected adopting a “no first use” rule on nuclear weapons, which in some respects would align with Obama’s pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy. In recent months the administration has returned to the question but has announced no decision yet.

The issue is complicated, but it boils down to this: What is to be gained by declaring in advance that the U.S. would not be the first to use a nuclear weapon? This was not an issue in August 1945 when the U.S. hit Japan with two atomic bombs, because no one else had the bomb.

Those who favour a “no first use” policy say the prospect of first-use encourages Russia and possibly China to field a large portion of their nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert in order to avoid a disarming U.S. nuclear strike. That in turn increases the chances of nuclear war by accident or design.

The counterargument is that “no first use” would undermine the confidence of U.S. allies in Europe and Asia that the U.S. would fulfil its treaty commitment to defend them.

Clinton raised that point when she followed Trump’s response at the debate. She did not say whether she favours a “no first use” policy but suggested she does not. After Trump’s answer, she seemed to feel it necessary to reassure U.S. allies.

The fact that it made her look more presidential perhaps played into her thinking as well.

“Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president,” she said. “And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defence treaties and we will honour them.”

Asked at a news conference Tuesday whether he favours a “no first use” policy, Defence Secretary Ash Carter made a similar point about alliance commitments, but not in the context of the political debate.

“It has been the policy of the United States to extend its nuclear umbrella to friends and allies, and thereby to contribute to the deterrence of conflict and the deterrence of war,” he said. “Many of our friends and allies have benefited from that over time,” and that should endure, he added.

Robert Burns, The Associated Press

by Canadian Press

Trump’s stance on nuclear restraint is ambiguous

What's Trending