Why US nuclear policies need modern reforms

The article from Foreign Affairs explores the pressing need for reform in the United States' nuclear decision-making process amid evolving global threats.

As nuclear weapons have become more potent and numerous, with nine states now possessing them, the article argues that the current system places too much power in the hands of a single individual—the president. This system was originally designed during the Cold War to respond rapidly to threats from the Soviet Union, emphasizing speed over careful deliberation. However, the complexities of modern nuclear risks necessitate a reevaluation of this approach.

The author highlights the troubling reality that US presidents have unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons without consultation, even in situations where the threat is ambiguous. This concentration of power raises significant concerns, particularly given the unpredictable nature of human decision-making under pressure. Historical examples, such as the Cuban missile crisis, illustrate the importance of having a consultative process. During that crisis, President John F. Kennedy engaged with a group of senior officials to assess the situation and explore alternatives, ultimately averting a nuclear disaster. This precedent underscores the potential benefits of a more collective approach to nuclear decision-making.

The article critiques the existing protocols that prioritize rapid responses, suggesting that they could lead to hasty and ill-considered actions in the face of perceived threats. It advocates for a more rigorous consultation process, involving key advisors such as the vice president, the secretaries of defense and state, and congressional leaders. Such a framework would not only allow for more informed decision-making but also ensure that strategic, military, diplomatic, and legal considerations are adequately weighed.

Furthermore, the author suggests that a systematic review of pre-planned nuclear targeting options should be conducted at the beginning of each administration. This review would align with contemporary military and civilian guidance, thus reinforcing the necessity for checks and balances in nuclear decision-making. The call for reform is particularly timely, as President Joe Biden approaches the end of his term, presenting an opportunity to implement new protocols that emphasize consultation while preserving the president's authority to act swiftly in genuine emergencies.

The article acknowledges previous attempts to establish safeguards, such as those proposed by nuclear threat experts Sam Nunn and Ernest Moniz, but emphasizes that no administration has successfully enacted them. The author argues that Biden's decision to refrain from seeking re-election gives him a unique opportunity to set a significant precedent by implementing these reforms before leaving office.

Ultimately, the article asserts that the combination of human fallibility and the existence of nuclear weapons poses a grave risk to global security. Drawing on Robert McNamara's reflections on the Cuban missile crisis, it stresses the need for a consultative process to mitigate the dangers associated with unilateral decision-making in the nuclear realm. By mandating that presidents consult with a select group of senior advisors before initiating a nuclear strike, the United States can enhance its safety and contribute to global stability, reflecting a prudent evolution in its nuclear policies in an increasingly complex world.