Follow us on social

2022-10-26t013426z_1113188071_rc2o8x92lii9_rtrmadp_3_japan-usa-southkorea

When the US threatens to use nuclear weapons

Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman just reaffirmed that Washington would maintain first use to protect 'our allies.'

Analysis | Global Crises

At the recent UN General Assembly First Committee session on October 19, China’s ambassador for disarmament affairs, Li Song, declared that “China has solemnly committed to no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones unconditionally.” 

Just one week later, another superpower failed to make the same promise. And it wasn’t Russia.

On October 25, at U.S.-sponsored talks with Japan and South Korea, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the U.S. commitment to defending Japan and South Korea is “ironclad.” She then explained what that meant, stating that “we will use the full range of U.S. defense capabilities to defend our allies, including nuclear, conventional and missile defense capabilities.”

Her statement would seem to match or even exceed Russia’s recent provocative proclamations. Putin has said that "in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us." Putin never specifies nuclear weapons, though his remarks have been largely interpreted as such.

Presumably, those weapons could be used to “defend” territories in Ukraine now considered part of the Russian federation, including Crimea, Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.

The U.S. statement goes beyond that. The State Department announcement states that its nuclear retaliation policy would be triggered not only by an attack on the U.S. but also by an attack on U.S. allies. And this is not an aberration. Sherman was not going rogue or speaking irresponsibly. The 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review states that "the United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." (Editor's note: Biden's new 2022 Nuclear Posture Review announced Thursday afternoon reaffirms this statement entirely.)

The U.S. also insists that it "has never adopted a 'no first use' policy." Washington, then, seems to have the most permissive nuclear first strike policy in the world today, given that its use of nuclear weapons extends to the defense of "allies and partners" and not just self-defense.

This is not the first time the U.S. has threatened North Korea with its ultimate firepower. In his 2017 UN address, Trump insisted that "the United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea." A month earlier, Trump threatened that if North Korea made “any more threats to the United States. . . . they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

On July 9, 1950, at the start of the Korean War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff debated “whether or not A-bombs should be made available to MacArthur." Gen. Douglas MacArthur had said that he “see[s] here a unique use for the atomic bomb.” He would later say that he “would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs.” On December 9, MacArthur requested commander’s discretion to use atomic bombs, and he submitted a list of potential targets.

President Truman, the only world leader to have ordered the use of atomic bombs, made the threat public in a November 1950 press conference, when he warned that the U.S. might use any weapon in its arsenal. While Truman was speaking, Air Force General George Stratemeyer put the Strategic Air Command on warning to be prepared to dispatch bombers with nuclear capabilities. 

In his book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Daniel Ellsberg says that “when Eisenhower arrived in the White House, the Korean War was stalemated. Eisenhower ended the impasse in a hurry. He secretly got word to the Chinese that he would drop nuclear bombs on North Korea unless a truce was signed immediately.” When Eisenhower was asked how the Korean War had ended, Ellsberg adds, he answered that it was due to the “danger of an atomic war.”

Ellsberg also reports that, in 1995, the Clinton administration secretly threatened North Korea that it could use nuclear weapons against North Korea’s nuclear reactor program. 

It is because of this history, North Korea insists, that they have acquired a nuclear weapons program as a deterrent to U.S. threats. Kim Jong-un has said that "unless the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK and the nuclear threat are fundamentally resolved, we will not put nuclear and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table under any circumstances."

North Korea’s recent legislation declaring itself a nuclear weapons state declares that it will "never give up" its nuclear weapons. In his speech marking the passage of the nuclear state legislation, Kim Jong-un said that "as long as nuclear weapons exist on Earth, and imperialism and the anti-North Korean maneuvers of the U.S. and its followers remain, our road to strengthening our nuclear force will never end."

On December 9, 1981, the UN passed the Declaration on the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe. It reaffirms that “the universally accepted objective is to eliminate completely the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.” It then pledges to “solemnly proclaim” that “any doctrines allowing the first use of nuclear weapons . . . are incompatible with human moral standards and the lofty ideals of the United Nations.”

As the world recklessly navigates its way through the most dangerous nuclear threat in decades, it is time to take seriously superpower boasts that they respect international law and the international order. Respecting international law includes respecting the declaration that first use nuclear policies, like those recently articulated by the U.S. and Russia, “are incompatible with . . . the lofty ideals of the United Nations.”


Japanese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Takeo Mori, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and South Korea's 1st. Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Hyun-dong, pose for photographers prior to their trilateral meeting Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2022, at the Iikura guesthouse in Tokyo. Eugene Hoshiko/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Global Crises
Hezbollah
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)

Hezbollah to US: It's not in your interest to support Israeli attacks

Middle East

The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.

Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.