The 39th and final B-52G Stratofortress, tail number 58-0224, accountable under the New START Treaty with Russia in Tucson, Ariz. / AP
As the media and politicians in the United States are currently focusing most national security discussions on the Islamic State and the broader threat of terrorism, there is little public focus on other, arguably more consequential challenges for American foreign and defense policy. Interestingly, one of these challenges often ignored is the only tool capable of achieving the apocalyptic vision that ISIS so violently seeks: Nuclear weapons.
American nuclear policy and strategy has largely been marginalized since the end of the Cold War, regarded as a relic from another time. Brad Roberts thinks otherwise, however, and articulates in his new and important book The Case for U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century why nuclear weapons are still essential to America’s security and interests, as well as to global stability.
Having served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy from 2009 to 2013, Roberts has unique insight into how the United States utilizes its nuclear deterrent and, just as importantly, how America’s adversaries use their nuclear arsenals to further their interests.
The main argument of the book is that nuclear weapons still play a crucial and necessary role for U.S. strategic policy, and thus, Washington should not take any unilateral steps to reduce its nuclear arsenal beyond the levels set by the 2010 New START Treaty with Russia. This is mainly because the United States “is apparently alone among the states with nuclear weapons to believe that it has more nuclear weapons than it needs.” Roberts advocates for a balanced approach to nuclear strategy in which the United States utilizes political and legal means like arms control and nonproliferation to mitigate threats as it simultaneously uses military means to keep a strong nuclear deterrent while nuclear weapons exist.
