
In Defence of a ‘No First Use’ Nuclear Doctrine - masteryupa_
https://thedaleyreview.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/in-defence-of-a-no-first-use-nuclear-doctrine/
======
DHMO
In addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been
close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because
they thought they were getting ready to respond to what they thought was an
aggressive act. It's just not a good idea to have nuclear weapons at all.

So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to
have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense.

Nuclear pulse propulsion should be allowed for spacecraft, however. This was
outlawed years ago by the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty)
but would be much more efficient than other currently used methods and safe if
used with clean bombs in space. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)

Weapons by their nature will continue to escalate as long as technology
improves, so if nuclear weapons continue to be allowed, time will surely bring
a weapon even more destructive to counter them. Whether you believe they've
brought peace or not, do you want someone to invent an even greater weapon and
test it as the next "weapon of peace"? I don't.

~~~
gizmo686
>including for spacecraft in space- something which was outlawed years ago.

What are you talking about? NASA is facing a plutonium-238 shortage, but that
is because we ran out of our stock-pile that was produced as a by-product of
bomb manufacturing. Production of plutonium-238 started again back in 2013.

The only international laws I could find regarding nuclear spacecraft seem to
be reasonable safety requirement (eg, not crash into Earth while still
radioactive).

>So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to
have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, even for a defensive strike.

The problem is that this policy removes the main dynamic that has prevented
use of nuclear weapons: the threat of reprisal. If a country (verifiably)
agrees to never use nuclear weapons, then a bad actor country can safely break
the agreement. Under the current system this does not happen, because that
would lead to a nuclear counter attack.

~~~
akiselev
NASA uses plutonium for radioisotope thermoelectric generators whereas the OP
is talking about nuclear pulse propulsion, which uses the shockwave from
nuclear warhead detonations to propel a spacecraft. These are two
fundamentally different things. The latter is illegal in most countries
because of the aforementioned Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any
atmospheric or outer space detonations.

~~~
XorNot
Also unnecessary because thermal lightbulb rockets deliver better ISP.

~~~
akiselev
Yes but unfortunately after the UTC research was canceled all development on
the nuclear lightbulb design was stopped while other methods of nuclear
propulsion received at least some mindshare from theoreticians and engineers.
The nuclear lightbulb now rots in the NASA technical archives. Most of the
engineers who worked on it are dead and we haven't made much progress on the
material science needed to pull it off (I.e. we still don't have a solution to
neutron damage and runaway heating in the single crystal berrillium oxide
sheath as well as a viable design for the fuel injector).

~~~
XorNot
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto)

But we did actually build prototype engines of a similar principle. There were
actual mechanical artifacts test-fired. This is a much more viable looking
option then Orion which only proved the pusher-plate design seems viable on a
small scale, and which is unlikely to ever clear the problem of "build a lot
of nuclear weapons...then deliberately start setting them off".

------
gozur88
"No first use" invites attack by anyone who has a stronger conventional
military. This is one of those cases where ambiguity is the right course of
action - if you say "all our options are on the table, and we'll decide on a
case-by-case basis" potential adversaries have to consider the possibility
they'll lose even if they win. They're likely to be more circumspect.

~~~
vilhelm_s
Yes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to
deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet
union declared that they would not make a first use (because their
conventional army was much stronger anyway). However, now the tables are
turned, and NATO has more conventional forces than Russia. (And indeed, Russia
changed policy and says that they would use nuclear weapons in response to a
conventional attack). Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S.
today would actually make a first use, so they can afford to change their
formal policy to reflect that.

At the same time, keeping the policy ambiguous has a cost, namely that the
other side will feel more threatened, raising the risk of an accidental
nuclear war. (C.f. Able Archer 83).

Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war.
To give the maximal stability, everyone should adopt as restrictive a policy
as possible (the ideal example is China, who rule out both first use and use
against non-nuclear countries). Such a policy makes the weapons less "useful",
in the sense that they only used to deter a nuclear attack and not for
"getting away with" weaker conventional forces, but it is safer.

~~~
flukus
What's China's policy if, in a conventional war, someone starts attacking
there nuclear facilities?

~~~
dogma1138
Define nuclear facilities (reactors, launch silos?).

Under MAD an attack on the nuclear capabilities of a nuclear armed state or
any attempt at unilateral disarmament is usually defined as a nuclear
attack/first strike. This often interpreted both indirect and indirect means
which is why the ABM work the US is been doing over the years in Europe causes
such a big mess with the Russians.

The US spends trillion on missile defense, trillions that Russia cannot
afford, so Russia is forced to spend it on improving their nuclear delivery
capabilities. Russia restarting their investment in their nuclear arms made
the US go and say "see Europe, we weren't just fear mongering, they are
rearming you need our missile defense" which pushes the Russians even further.

~~~
flukus
I was thinking launch silos when I wrote it, but it's a deeper question now
that I think of it.

Could a conventional attack on a power plant and the fallout from it be
considered a nuclear attack? What about a nuclear powered air craft carrier?

Is an attack on a nuclear armed submarine, would they be considered an attack
on their nuclear capabilities? The attacker might not even know what type of
submarine it is.

~~~
dogma1138
Well when it comes to MAD any attempt to disarm the nuclear capability of your
partner in MADness has to be considered as a first strike which would lead to
a retaliatory nuclear 2nd strike even if the 1st strike was not nuclear it
self.

Like everything in life you have to take it into proportion, if Russia or the
US sink a single SSBN that's not exactly nuclear disarmament, if one party
launches a preemptive non-nuclear strike against the SSBN fleet at large as
well as the fixed and mobile ground based platforms that would likely invoke a
very harsh response which traditionally under MAD has to be nuclear because if
you do not use your nuclear arsenal while you still have it effectively you've
lost it for good.

And if the other party knows or suspects you would not use your nuclear
arsenal unless you've been attacked with nuclear or non-conventional non-
nuclear weapons first even if the conventional attack is against your nuclear
capability they would attempt to disarm you without thinking twice.

MAD works well when you under no circumstances would use your nuclear arsenal
first in an offensive manner, but have very clear and public guidelines for
nuclear response.

------
JDDunn9
How about a more general no first strike policy? If you are willing to pre-
strike a country, logically they should be willing to pre-pre-strike you. A no
first strike policy allows for us to reach a Nash equilibrium.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Not really - you can't rule out defectors.

------
captainmuon
Somewhat related, I've never believed the conventional doctrine of mutual
assured destruction.

The way I see it, the only rational thing to do once you have been hit hard by
nuclear weapons is to forget your original plan of retaliation and to
surrender immediately. Retaliating would only kill more people and potentially
render the planet uninhabitable, but would give you no gain.

MAD only works if you tie your own hands. If you make the retaliation
absolutely automatic and unstoppable. As far as I know, the only such system
that was built was the Soviet "Perimetr" or "Dead Hand" system, which was
never completely activated. As long as there is a human component, you will be
able to, and rationally have to, turn around once you have taken the hit.

I think the naive story about MAD comes from applying game theory but assuming
your strategy is static throughout the whole "game".

Likewise, the main reason we (US, NATO) have not used another nuclear bomb is
that we have not been in a "real" war against an opponent where it would make
sense. I mean for example an all out land war against Russia on Russian or
European territory and/or where US territory is under danger. Where it would
make sense to use a nuclear bomb to quickly destroy a huge tank unit or
weapons factories, or to bomb the enemy into submission (if you have given up
on sparing civilian lives). Once we would be stuck in such a horrible war, a
"no first use" doctrine like any peacetime strategy would be up for discussion
immediately, IMO.

~~~
Noseshine
Incidentally, I read that "perimeter" \- the Soviet automatic MAD system - was
actually not meant against the Americans, but against the "hawks" in the
Soviet government. Which is why it wasn't publicized. It assured them that the
USSR had a way to retaliate in any case - so there was no need to launch nukes
right away at the slightest suspicion, but waiting if there actually was an
impact somewhere was possible without losing the ability to retaliate. With
the "hawks" assured the calmer people now had more time to _think_ , _talk_ ,
and _check data_ in an emergency and faced less pressure to act immediately.

And to the MAD scenario, I too came to the conclusion that the only sane thing
to do if I was someone in the chain of command to launch nukes was

a) Always make your unwavering commitment to launch clear - to everyone,
including at home.

b) When it happens, refuse to launch, contradictory to anything people know
about you.

You can't tell b) to anyone though, because there is a chance the enemy may
find out. It's important to only reveal that you won't ever launch nukes when
it actually happens, not before.

~~~
captainmuon
Yeah, the most important thing about deterrence is to make a certain
impression to the enemy.

I always found it mind-boggling that the Soviets kept "Perimeter" secret, but
the theory you write about makes a lot of sense.

------
jjcc
The principle is beyond the Nuclear policy. It's a famous winning strategy in
game theory called "tit for tat" which can be considered as the foundation of
all moral principles of human society.

~~~
oxide
does the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction have roots in game theory? or
does the concept itself simply tie back into tit for tat?

~~~
aidenn0
The person credited with creating the term was a mathematician, (and also
extraordinarily hawkish). He was almost certainly aware of Nash's work, as he
coauthored a book proving the existence of Nash equilibria for zero-sum games
prior to Nash's more general proof:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assured_destruction)

[edit]

As a note, I can't find a date for Von Neumann coining the MAD term. It seems
likely to me that it would predate Nash's work, though as I said earlier, the
existence of such equilibria was already well known (It was jut not proven
that for large classes of non-zero-sum games there must exist at least one
such equilibrium, which was Nash's contribution).

------
ianunruh
> Firstly, it is important to recall that in the entire span since the United
> States acquired nuclear weapons it has not seen fit to use them.

Uhhh, did the author forget about 1945?

~~~
masteryupa_
Apologies for the miss-type, the error has been corrected:

"Firstly, it is important to recall that in the entire span since the United
States acquired nuclear weapons, outside the two instances in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, it has not seen fit to use them."

~~~
SilasX
"Other than the death of her husband, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play."

~~~
madgar
Yeah because avoiding nuclear holocaust during the Cold War was a walk in the
park and definitely not worth highlighting /s

------
Animats
There's a new argument for enacting this as legislation, and requiring the
permission of Congress for first use of nuclear weapons. Trump might be
elected.

~~~
duncan_bayne
You get that it's Clinton, not Trump, with the established history of starting
and encouraging wars?

Not that I'd vote for either of them, but it bothers me when people claim that
a Trump presidency would be any more dangerous in this regard then if Clinton
were elected.

------
solotronics
I imagine it could be a tactic to launch a single ICBM from a submarine at
yourself to give cause to launch a nuclear offense. In reality it doesn't
matter who shoots first against a determined enemy who is willing to execute a
false flag.

~~~
pluma
Or you could just launch the nukes anyway because if there is a thermonuclear
war it doesn't matter what asshole started it for which reason unless there's
someone alive to hold you accountable when the dust has settled.

Only the worst kind of human would ever actually use a nuclear weapon in any
scenario.

