Trump wants denuclearization and to halve defense spending. The high power profile is suddenly a voice of reason and moderation? It’s a strange look for someone trying to dictate to the world on tariffs and everything else.
China isn’t all that impressed. Foreign Minister Guo Jiakun had a lot to say about it, most of which translates to “Russia and the US first”. Russia hasn’t responded.
Russia is also in the unenviable position of having a shattered military and has been waving the nuclear stick as its main credible asset for years. Don’t hold your breath for wild enthusiasm from the Russians.
It’s more than a bit strange that someone whose “big stick” approach to anyone and everything now suddenly includes a smaller stick. Why? It should also be noted that Trump simultaneously wants an Iron Dome defense for the US. Contradiction in plain sight, perhaps?
The added quasi-incentive of “cutting defense spending” is another oddity. China and the US have massive military budgets. In the US the military budget is often the very big money element in the US economy. It’s a poster industry for the right.
Cutting the budget also doesn’t mean the money won’t simply be redirected to other defense projects. It looks good on paper. You can say you’ve halved spending without any qualifiers. None of this verbiage is likely to survive any degree of scrutiny of budget allocations for long.
The US budget is notoriously nepotistic and selective. More money for the boys, perhaps?
The US military budget isn’t just about big things going bang. There’s an entire technical logistics system, support systems, and whole sectors of contractors. Thousands of people and major capital commitments are involved.
Now add to this the simple truth that most of the older systems are pretty much obsolete. They’re more than a bit clunky and cumbersome. The arsenal will need replacing relatively soon.
The old nuclear strategies are also aging necrotically. Delivery of nukes has become a very wide range of choices. You can have nukes delivered to your hut on Pennsylvania Avenue any way you like.
It’s largely a matter of opinion how disingenuous this proposal is. The nuclear arsenals went beyond insanity long ago. All life on Earth could be obliterated multiple times over. Mutual Assured Destruction is a statement of fact.
These arsenals are now also integral parts of the strategic furniture. It’s been a stagnant situation since the invention of ICBMs. Strategically, it’s debatable if destroying the world a bit less is any better than it currently is.
If you consider Pax Nuclear a way of stopping major wars, It’s heresy. “What, you want more conventional wars?” is the usual default argument against denuclearization. You might also note that there are already plenty of wars with or without nukes.
One of the built-in caveats here is that none of the critical parts of the subject can be discussed in any level of detail. It’s an idea that can only be discussed in principle due to security issues. You are seen to do something, and nobody will ever know exactly what you did.
World peace needs sanity, not brochures. If humanity ever grows up, that is.
____________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
