US Nuclear Power: New Doctrine, Old Nightmares

The New York Times (NYT) reported on August 20 that Joe Biden signed a secret document that addresses US strategic deterrence (Nuclear Employment Guidance, NEG) to counter the nuclear threat of three coordinated countries (Russia, China, and the North Korea). This is certainly not the first time US intelligence has divulged sensitive information, usually in a confusing and exploitative manner. On the other hand, if it were true, this vocabulary alone would be enough to diagnose a serious pathology on the part of the document’s drafters, given that only insane people could think they could wage (or possibly win) a nuclear war, especially against three united nations that don’t seem to be about to bomb the hegemonic empire! Indeed, behind this position lies the well-known imperial arrogance, as well as the eternal interests of arms manufacturers (nuclear or conventional, doesn’t matter).

In essence, the new doctrine will be motivated by the expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal, which, according to the NEG, aims to equal that of the Americans and Russians within a decade. An in-depth analysis of this strategic drivel will be made public before Biden leaves the stage. The intention is to dissuade the said countries to continue on this path, namely the path of independence and their legitimate interests, not the path of self-destructive vassalage like the European countries. It never occurred to the Pentagon’s gloomy analysts to propose a peace conference to reduce these deadly arsenals.

According to the NYT, the strategic partnership between Russia and China – with the addition of North Korea and Iran, accused of supplying Moscow with weapons that are further used in Ukraine – will be a wake-up call as they conduct routine military exercises, while that very partnership will aid North Korean and Iranian missile programs.

Regardless of whether Harris or Trump enters the White House, the USA (actually a united military party, the Democrat/Republican Party), according to NEG, will be called upon to manage a different scenario compared to the past, while, contrary to stifling Western propaganda, it is quite obvious that Moscow (and the more so Beijing or Pyongyang) will only consider using nuclear weapons if survival is at stake, which is thankfully a remote and unlikely scenario.

The second reason for US strategic revisionism could result from the evolution of China’s nuclear strategy. According to the International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm, China possessed about 500 nuclear warheads in January 2024 (410 in January 2023), a number that Beijing intends to gradually increase in order to get closer to the arsenals of Washington and Moscow. And the reason for this escalation is, no doubt, precisely because of the US choice of containing China instead of balanced coexistence. A country (the USA) with 6000 nuclear warheads, of which 1600 are ready for use, should actually pursue a policy of disarmament rather than constant provocations leading to hyperbolic rearmament.

North Korea, for its part, according to the CIA, will have 60 nuclear devices (the numbers are really inflated, but useful for increasing the defense budget, similar to Pakistan and Israel anyway). In this regard, it is trivial to note that Kim Jong-un has learned the lesson of Gaddafi and Saddam, namely that possession of the atomic bomb represents the best guarantee of survival and resistance to American expansionist militarism.

Now, to better articulate the scenario underlying the nuclear issue, it is useful to take a brief look at the relevant multilateral and bilateral (USA-Russia) treaties, current or past.

The main international pact, of course, is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, which entered into force in 1970) that is based on: (a) peaceful use of nuclear energy; (b) non-proliferation; and c) disarmament. The countries possessing atomic weapons are: USA (about 6000 warheads), Russia (over 6000), France (450), UK (275), China (550), India (60/90), Pakistan (24/48), North Korea (2/15), Israel (at least 90). South Africa gave them up, Ukraine and Kazakhstan passed them to Russia. Countries not party to the NPT are Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, and South Sudan. More than 40 countries, including Japan, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Germany/Netherlands, and others, controlling the fuel cycle, are technically capable of building a nuclear device.

All countries that have acceded to the NPT have the right to develop civilian nuclear energy under the control of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency (as Iran does, for example). The treaty obligates countries that do not possess atomic weapons not to acquire them, while member countries that have them (USA, Russia, UK, France, China) are recognized as having the legitimacy to possess them. The NPT thus clearly discriminates between the two categories of countries, but in order to curb the proliferation of these deadly weapons. Finally, it should be noted that under Article VI of the NPT, nuclear-armed countries are obligated to promote agreements and/or initiatives for general nuclear disarmament, but they are not doing so!

Now we come to the bilateral agreements between the USA and the USSR (now Russia). On June 3, 2002, the crucial ABM treaty signed in 1972 by Brezhnev and Nixon, which limited the number and range of anti-missile ballistic missiles, was denounced by Washington on plausible grounds. Another basic agreement, the so-called New Start, signed in Prague in April 2010 by Obama and Medvedev, which sets limits on ballistic nuclear missiles, was renewed in 2016 and 2021. It is now conceivable that under current conditions it could be extended after its expiration in 2026. On the other hand, in 2023, Russia, although it formally withdrew from the treaty, suspended its application, saying it was ready to return to it only if the United States recognized Moscow’s concerns. According to the Russian president, it would be naive for US inspectors to visit Russian nuclear facilities, as stipulated in the treaty, while that country is providing Ukraine with weapons and military aid to destroy Russia.

On paper, New Start replaced the previous START 1 and 2 treaties (they never entered into force) and the 2002 Moscow Treaty (SORT), which expired in 2012, and provided that the parties would not have: (a) more than 1550 nuclear warheads; (b) a number of missiles exceeding 74% of START 1 and 30% of the Moscow Treaty; and (c) more than 700 nuclear-capable carriers and bombers (the limit was subsequently increased to 800 to include non-targeted missiles). It also provided for inspections, data exchange, notification of strategic weapons and facilities, and methods of verification. It’s all gone now.

Another fundamental agreement is the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), signed in Washington on December 8, 1987, by Reagan and Gorbachev, which ended the case for US and Soviet nuclear missiles in Europe (Soviet SS-20 and, following NATO’s 1979 dual decision, Pershing-2 IRBMs and American BGM-109 Tomahawks) ceased to exist in 2017 when Washington announced its withdrawal, accusing Russia of violating the agreement without providing convincing evidence.

Even the Open Skies Treaty, aimed at ensuring military transparency, signed in 1992 and entered into force in 2002, was denounced by the United States in May 2020 with false accusations against Russia, which then decided to withdraw in December 2021.

Finally, it is useful to mention the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted at the UN on July 7, 2017 and entering into force in January 2021 after ratification by the first 50 countries, which aims to completely ban nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, of the 195 countries to which it was addressed (193 UN members plus the Holy See and Palestine), 66 did not participate in the negotiations, the nuclear-military countries (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) and the countries associated with nuclear deterrence military alliances (NATO countries, excluding the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, Australia). Among the rest, 70 have ratified and 27 have only signed but not yet ratified. Therefore, we are still far from universalizing this critical commitment.

Returning to the new US doctrine, China has already expressed extreme concern about this dangerous US drift, which fuels an instrumental nuclear threat from China, which among nuclear powers is the only one (along with India) to adhere to the “no first use” principle of nuclear weapons. The biggest threat to the world, according to Beijing, comes from the USA, which, with 800 military bases scattered everywhere for thousands of kilometers, is definitely not meant to protect national borders.

Moreover, in Ukraine, the United States hopes that Russia will recklessly respond to NATO-USA provocations by using tactical nuclear weapons limited to Europe, thereby alienating the sympathies of the Global South and bringing the European economy to its knees. However, in the Middle East, even a conflict that extends to Iran and other Arab/Muslim countries should not lead to Russian or Chinese intervention. Thus, according to the new American nuclear doctrine, it is in the Far East that the decisive game of world balance is being played.

The spark of a hypothetical China-American conflict, according to the realist school, could ignite in the South China Sea (over various claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands) or the East China Sea (China-Japan on the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands), even more so than in Taiwan. The USA has no intention of withdrawing from the Asia-Pacific region. But empires decline because at a certain point they begin to accumulate mistakes and unrealistic ambitions, losing touch with reality.

As for the hypothetical American-China conflict using conventional weapons, according to many American analysts (J. Mearsheimer, D. McGregor, G. Sachs, et al), China will win in it, unless the USA resorts to nuclear weapons, a very risky decision, certainly for the known reasons of mutual destruction, but also because China has hypersonic missiles that are difficult to intercept today. Of course, the USA, even without such hypersonic missiles, could always hit Chinese territory with missiles launched from nuclear submarines cruising in Chinese waters. In short, the end of the world, or nearly that.

So, for the moment, it is an equation to be cultivated by the few decision-making politicians endowed with wisdom or at least common sense, after they have taken away the decision-making power of the many Generals Strangeloves who, in this situation, seem to be operating the runaway locomotive that will end humanity.