US to amend First Strike policy?

Legislation introduced by Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate would bar the United States from using a nuclear weapon unless attacked with one first, demonstrating growing momentum for anti-nuclear sentiments on the left in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Background 

No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. Earlier, the concept had also been applied to chemical and biological warfare.

The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released on April 6, 2010.

The 2010 Nuclear Posture review reduces the role of U.S. nuclear weapons, stating that, "The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners." The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states: "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

Analysis

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a 2020 presidential contender, and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced the No First Use Act in their respective chambers to codify in law what they said “most Americans already believe — that the United States should never initiate a nuclear war.”

The text of the bill is simple, saying only that “it is the policy of the United States not to use nuclear weapons first.” But while the measure has support among many Democrats and could pass through the House, it probably would not get enough Republican backing to win approval in the Senate.

It would almost certainly face a veto by President Trump, whose administration has opposed the proposal in its nuclear weapons policy. Still, the introduction of the bill by a high-profile presidential contender and the chairman of one of the House’s most powerful committees indicates how the idea is gaining traction within a swath of the Democratic base.

“Our current nuclear strategy is not just outdated — it is dangerous,” Warren and Smith said in a joint statement regarding the bill. “By making clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal, this bill would reduce the chances of a nuclear miscalculation and help us maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world.”

President Barack Obama considered declaring a “no first use” policy for nuclear weapons in the final year of his administration. U.S. allies and members of the administration, including Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter, opposed the measure, and Obama decided against pursuing it.  

The election of Trump that same year raised concerns about the president’s authority to launch a nuclear weapon, a reality that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton made a centerpiece of her 2016 campaign’s messaging, warning that Trump did not have the temperament to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Democratic lawmakers have seized upon such concerns since Trump’s election.

Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) this week reintroduced a bill they had put forth before that would prevent the president from launching a nuclear first strike without congressional approval. Theoretically, the president must receive approval from Congress to declare war, but past presidents have found legal grounds to take military action without that sign-off.

Counterpoint

Those who want to retain Washington’s right to strike first with a nuclear weapon in a conflict say the strategic ambiguity helps bolster deterrence and argue that there may be circumstances in which a nonnuclear strike on strategic assets or population centres warrants a nuclear response. 

The Trump administration determined that a “no first use” policy was not warranted when it released its nuclear weapons policy in early 2018. The policy said the United States would consider employment of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances, which include “significant nonnuclear strategic attacks,” such as attacks on infrastructure, nuclear forces, their command and control or warning capabilities. 

Assessment 

Our assessment is that a change in the US’s first strike policy will rattle its allies who are under the protection of the Nuclear Umbrella. We believe that the US refusal to adopt a No First Strike gives Washington an edge over China or India, who have formally announced their intention not to preemptively use nuclear weapons.