2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

I want to clarify that the scope of our committee is international and that delegates should not focus on the nuclear affairs that occur between only one or two countries. The issues of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and small arms are relevant to all countries in this committee. With that said, however, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the Trump administration's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review because of the changes it could effect in the international community. As well, although this update may be out of the scope of DISEC and thus not thoroughly discussed in committee, it's also just a significant event in American domestic affairs. 

A new Nuclear Posture Review is released when an administration decides to change the status quo policy regarding nuclear weapons. It appears that the Trump administration wants to stray away from disarmament and lean towards proliferation of smaller nuclear weapons to compete with China and Russia in this new strategy. 

In a National Public Radio interview, Alexandra Bell describes why the Trump administration is calling for the proliferation of "smaller nuclear arms": 

"The idea is that [a lower-yield nuclear weapon] would be more usable, that our largest nuclear weapons and our arsenals would somehow deter us, that we wouldn't want to cause that much damage. So we need these smaller options to convince countries that we will, in fact, respond to aggression."

Bell also points out that the nuclear bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered "small" nuclear weapons, of about 20 kilotons and less. 

Also, this year's NPR discusses the nuclear option in retaliation to cyberattacks. Cyberattacks are a fairly recent phenomena in foreign affairs, and many governments have not outlined how retaliation should look like. In the 2018 NPR, however, the Trump administration has proposed employing nuclear weapons in response to cyberattacks. In light of this, many foreign policy and national security experts have commented on this update in policy. In a Washington Post piece, Richard A. Clarke and Steve Andreasen describe the recently changing attitudes towards the deployment of nuclear weapons:    

"Five years ago, the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board published a report equating the impact of Chinese and Russian capabilities to launch an 'existential cyber attack' against the United States with the impact of a nuclear attack — and recommended that the United States be prepared to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to deter cyberattacks. When the board’s recommendation was exposed to the light of day by the two of us and others in 2013, it was publicly rebuked and, as a matter of policy, quietly discarded. 

But just last month, the board’s proposal became U.S. policy. In December, the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy quietly expanded the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense plans, stating they are 'essential' to prevent 'non-nuclear strategic attacks' — i.e., cyberattacks. 

This week, the Trump administration is expected to release its 'Nuclear Posture Review.' A leaked pre-decisional draft reaffirms the policy of threatening nuclear use to prevent cyberattacks, but goes even further — expanding the role of U.S. forward-deployed nuclear weapons in NATO’s European defenses."

If you are interested in U.S. national security and foreign policy, I recommend you read further about the 2018 NPR or even read the actual document itself. 

Here are some sources with different stances on the new strategy:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-nuclear-weapons-were-getting-too-comfortable-thinking-the-unthinkable/2018/01/30/3e1edb3c-051a-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.8929af0a358d
• https://www.npr.org/2018/01/28/581397033/the-other-npr-nuclear-posture-review
• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/13/trumps-nuclear-strategy-seeks-new-weapons-to-counter-russia.html