Thread by @CherylRofer

1. I've been thinking about a project for a while. We need new thinking about nuclear weapons - I am not satisfied with either the conventional ideas about deterrence or the ban the bomb approach.

2. I don't get far just thinking about it, though. It's a hard problem, which is why none of us have done very well at producing that new thinking. So I propose to consider it in a continuing Twitter thread. It will take more than just tonight.

3. I am going to raise questions and toss out some thoughts. This is not an invitation for simple answers, nor is it a request for articles to read. I've read a lot, and I haven't seen what I think is needed.

4. @hgusters expressed a similar frustration in an article today in @BulletinAtomic.
thebulletin.org/2019/01/the-bl…

5. I listened to the @BrookingsInst panel he references, and agree completely with his analysis. It was insiders talking insiders inside a bubble. I think we need to get out of that bubble.

6. One of the things I would change about venues like that panel and articles about nuclear weapons and deterrence is where they start. I want to look at what happens if we start back further.

7. The starting point assumes too much of today's situation. There is a place for such things, like military strategy. But the Brookings panel was advertised as looking at the future of nuclear treaties.

8. What happens is that the discussion devolves to "how do we meet the buildup that someone else is doing?" or a back-and-forth of deterrence measures.

9. So let's take a few steps back. Why would a country use a nuclear weapon? The conventional answers tend to be a) because they are being overmatched in a war; b) because the other side used one; or c) because the leader wants a first strike against an enemy.

10 But any use of a nuclear weapon in a confrontation with another nuclear power is likely to result in the end of the world as we know it. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

I think I'll stop here for tonight.

11. Continuing my thoughts about nuclear weapons.

Let's consider which nations have nuclear weapons and their interests in having and potentially using them. I do this rather than try to derive some general principles because I think the interactions are varied enough.

12. Nine nations have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Three more nations might want nuclear weapons in the near future but do not have them now: Iran, Myanmar, and Brazil.

13. One nation, South Africa, built six nuclear weapons and gave them up.

I won't consider those last four for a while, if at all.

14. I'm going to look at this mainly from the pov of the United States because that's easiest for me.

15. Of the nine nuclear weapons states, the US is allied with France and Britain. Not threats. Israel's nuclear weapons are not a direct threat to the United States, but could cause trouble indirectly.

16. India and Pakistan each have nuclear weapons because of the other, plus India balances its nuclear weapons against China's. Also not a direct threat to the US, although a nuclear war in South Asia would be globally damaging.

17. That leaves Russia and China who pose a nuclear threat to the United States. And, it should be noted, the United States poses a nuclear threat to them.

Russia and China are much closer to the other nuclear powers in Asia, which are more of a concern than they are to the US.

18. That sets the stage. Enough for tonight.

19. Let's look at the China-US nuclear relationship.

20. To start, there is no reason that either China or the United States would consider a first strike.

Let's say that again. There is no reason that either China or the United States would consider a first strike.

21. I say it twice because there always seems to be someone willing to stretch probabilities or imagination to come up with some justification.

22. China and the United States are major trading partners. Starting any kind of war (including trade wars) is damaging to the people of both countries.

23. Taiwan is the sole possible reason for a war between the United States and China. Lesser probabilities are some sort of naval encounter in the South China Sea or something bizarrely going wrong relative to North Korea.

24. But none of those are reason for a first nuclear strike.

In any war with China, the United States would be disadvantaged because it has few land bases in the areas. This could lead to early use of nuclear weapons.

Or it could be a reason to avoid war.

25. With a long shared border, China and Russia are more positioned to fight a war. There are also issues of resources and population across that border. This is part of Russia's justification for tactical nuclear weapons.

26. Quiet night. I think I'll stop here.