Today's nuclear landscape - from Russia, to North Korea, to India, Pakistan and China - is more complex and more dangerous than any time since the end of the Cold War. Yet, the little consensus that exists in the United States and abroad seems to be deepening about the importance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in assurance, deterrence, and stability.
Deterrence is a conversation among allies and adversaries that depends on shared perceptions about:
- The risks or threats that shape the global security environment
- The nature and value of the global security architecture that shapes and governs this environment
- The role of the United States in the global security system
I fear that today, those basic shared perceptions are lacking and perhaps even trending the wrong direction - especially when we take a more panoramic view of the world. The numbers are shocking:
A New Generation
One third of the U.S. population was born after the Cold War ended, and this demographic reality is no less impactful anywhere else on the globe. The language, experience and concepts of the Cold War do not resonate with or inspire this generation, and little has emerged to re-explain deterrence in contemporary terms.
Cyber Threats
Cyber threats, on the other hand, today are part of every American's daily life. These threats are ubiquitous - the "duck and cover" of the 21st century. Cyber threats don't need to be explained and persuaded. They are experienced. Deterrence is neither experienced nor felt - but it has to be believed nonetheless. Are we having the conversations, not only with our adversaries but also with our publics, needed to sustain nuclear deterrence in the decades ahead?
Nationalist Trends
Moreover, the internationalist systems and structures built after WWII form much of the anatomy - backbone, nervous system, and muscle - of our structures for deterrence, especially extended deterrence. We are in the grips of fractious, nationalistic politics and polarized, politicized policymaking. Look to Europe, where political players and classes have risen that do not share this internationalist, progressive view of the world. The strain on these systems and structures is tremendous. But we need not look far from home to see the pressures on this system from disaffected populations weary of the price of globalization. We are feeling the strain no less in our own policies and politics in which many see more "burden" in collective relationships and alliances than burden-sharing.
Brexit
The June 23 Brexit vote should be seen as a wake-up call that the status quo is not assured, that the establishment may not prevail, and that the United States is not immune. We have only begun to understand the implications of these dynamics with our closest ally and nuclear partner and, by extension, NATO. While the UK's modernization program survived the July 18 parliamentary vote on its future, the book isn't fully written given deep divisions over the Brexit vote and the prospects for renewed efforts at Scottish independence. Today, three nuclear weapons states (the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) share common values, perspectives, and commitments on the role of their nuclear forces and their responsibilities as stewards of nuclear weapons. Watching that number go down to two is not in our interests and does not strengthen our own deterrence credibility.
Crackdown in Turkey
Other allies with whom we share nuclear deterrence responsibilities also face great challenges. Even in the early days following the failed coup and widespread crackdown in Turkey, the calls for removal of U.S. nuclear weapons stationed at the NATO facility at Incirlik are growing.
Human Displacement and Dislocation
The migration crisis facing Europe also impacts this changing global landscape. 65 million people have been forcibly displaced. That figure, which jumped 50 percent in five years, is mind boggling. It is challenging the fundamental principles of progressive societies. We now have country-size populations fleeing conflict, violence, and economic ruin in ways unprecedented since World War II.
As millions flow into Europe, a disturbing number are flowing out: More than 6,000 European nationals have joined ISIS or other radical groups, creating unprecedented outflows of would-be extremists, potential jihadists, and, in some cases, extremists of convenience - cults of the 21st century.
Paris, Brussels, Nice, and Munich may only be the beginning of a new terror-driven reality. The days of Europe as a net exporter of security - bound in transatlantic partnership with the United States - may be numbered.
Weakening of Westphalian System?
Why is this happening? More than 40% of the world's countries are facing severe challenges in security, governance, and stability - the picture is even more startling when considering these countries are mostly in the Middle East and Africa.
If Europe and the United States are feeling unprecedented pressure on the transatlantic security architecture, we can also see a potentially even bigger shift - a deep and widespread weakening of the Westphalian system of nation states. If our nuclear arsenal is designed to deter nations, what happens if nations go away?
The Arctic: No-Go No More
Northward, the Arctic used to be a "no go" zone - more or less irrelevant for the continuous, anytime, anywhere requirements of our sea-based deterrent capability. Russia's 41 heavy ice breakers may not seem like much, but the United States only has two.
A Shifting Tide in the Asia-Pacific
Looking to the Asia Pacific, the region encapsulates today's multipolar world - conflicts there would simultaneously strike at the heart of U.S. deterrence and assurance capabilities. This area also sits at the nexus of rising global power competition, as countries deal with Chinese political and military expansion and the U.S. response to this changing situation.
The Humanitarian Pledge
Finally, 60-80 percent of countries do not believe in the value of nuclear deterrence or assurance, even with growing nuclear threats. At the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee meeting, only 16 countries supported a statement calling for total elimination of nuclear weapons. Today, that number stands at 159.
The 21st Century Deterrence Conversation
The global security landscape is bending under extraordinary strain from many directions. Those of us in the nuclear enterprise must ask ourselves:
- Can we be heard?
- Are we listening?
- Are we understood?
I fear the answer to these questions is increasingly no. The assurance-deterrence conversation of previous decades may not suffice for the decades to come.
But I believe we can do better and believe we must. CSIS colleague Heather Conley released a commentary in which her recommendation applies entirely to the demands of credible and sustainable deterrence in the 21st century:
"The transatlantic community needs new foreign policy approaches that are more publicly accessible, nimble to circumstances, and regionally adapted. A new and honest conversation with citizens is required to rebuild trust and confidence in institutions and leaders."
We need to start talking about nuclear deterrence and what it means to U.S. national security, but we need to listen too.
This piece has been adapted from a talk given on July 27, 2016 at the U.S. STRATCOM Deterrence Symposium. The views expressed above are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project on Nuclear Issues, the U.S. government, or any of its agencies.