Legal Commentary

More On The "Umbrella Of Deterrence"

By Big Tent Democrat

John Aravosis links to a Dr. Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation on the Clinton "umbrella of deterrence" proposal. Aravosis quotes Dr. Lewis saying things that strike me as not only wrong, but nuts. Dr. Lewis provides three rules: [More...]

A couple of rules about nuclear weapons.

Rule number one is never, ever, ever threaten to use nuclear weapons against another country unless you plan to do so in the near future. Brandishing our nuclear arsenal doesn't achieve anything beyond what comes from having nuclear weapons in first place-- the Iranians are well aware of our nuclear capabilities. Talking about it always rings hollow, while encouraging the other side to call your bluff by saying or doing provocative things in response.

Never threaten to use nuclear weapons unless you plan to in the near future? Excuse me Dr. Lewis, but this is nuts. The idea of PLANNING TO USE nuclear weapons in the near future is something that should be avoided at almost all costs. The idea of deterrence theory is to let people know what will happen if they do something. So that you do not have to plan to use nuclear weapons in the near future. Being coy about it leaves uncertainty, not deterrence. I know Dr. Lewis is supposed to be the expert but this first rule strikes me as just plain nuts. Dr. Lewis continues:

Rule number two is don't act freaked out by other countries current or possible nuclear weapons. The model here is LBJ, who gave a very reassuring speech saying that China's first nuclear test in 1964 wouldn't change the balance of power in Asia. The goal is to reassure allies, not talk like some deranged lunatic, which Senator Clinton is normally not.

Hmmm. In terms of Iran's possibly gaining nuclear weapons, it seems to me that everyone is doing a lot of freaking out. Dr. Lewis must not have been following the Iran story for the past couple of years. Offering an umbrella of deterrence strikes me as a measured and thoughtful non-freakout. Dr. Lewis' reaction is the one that is rather overwrought. He looks the deranged lunatic here, not Clinton. Dr. Lewis continues:

Rule number three is to remember that the credibility of the nuclear umbrella comes from the credibility of our security commitment to other countries. So you don't talk about extending nuclear deterrence; you talk about how we regard the security of Israel (or Japan or Europe or whomever) as a vital national interest. The nuclear part is pretty obvious and best remains unsaid.

Hmm, this strikes me as the emptiest of arguments. If "the nuclear part is pretty obvious" then why does it remaini best unsaid? You'll excuse me, but if this is the basis for Dr. Lewis calling Clinton a deranged lunatic, let's make sure he has stays far away from the levers of power. His response is so unmeasured, so impolitic and, imo, so ridiculous, that one wonder how he came to be considered an expert in the field. (Se, I get to be unmeasured because I am just a blogger, not an expert. I can call him a deranged lunatic. He does not get to call Hillary Clinton a deranged lunatic and be considered a serious person.)

By Big Tent Democrat

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 23, 2008 (boomark / email).