The New Nuclear Paradox

So, Obama's hosting the Nuclear Security Summit right now, which is the largest gathering of world leaders on American soil since 1945. Pretty cool! Also cool: apparently the U.S. has the moral authority and capability to be the go-to country for helping others, namely Ukraine and Chile, collect and dispose of weapons-grade nuclear material.

I got to thinking last night how far the world has come, even just in my lifetime (born 1982), on the subject of nuclear weapons use. It seems that we're at the point where use of a nuclear weapon by a legitimate country is all but impossible politically. Russia and the US are drawing down their arsenals cooperatively, to widespread international acclaim. Some states are voluntarily giving up the potential for nuclear capability by giving us their materials, and they're apparently not worried that we'll turn them into weapons and bomb people. Among nuclear states that hate each other and antagonize each other every other way imaginable (looking at you, India and Pakistan) nuclear war has never broken out. Economic inter-connection is also a deterrent: what would the U.S., for example, get out of nuking China? Nothing worth nuking China, that's what. The world economy as it is provides no incentives for the kind of scortched-earth warfare a nuclear bomb represents. It is politically indefensible for any country to use a nuclear bomb against any other country.

That brings us to those to whom political defensibility means nothing. Obviously, terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and would use them if they got them. This is part of the reason Ukraine in particular is anxious to unload its enriched uranium. It's pretty expensive to keep that stuff protected. Here's where I have trouble though: does the US, or anybody, actually gain anything from having a nuclear weapon to use against terrorists? The whole deal with terrorists is that their center of power moves; we don't know where they are to bomb them. We're already bombing civilians in Pakistan with drones because those civilians live near purported terrorist cells. Will there ever come a time that we consider a compromised or failed state, like Somalia or Afghanistan, a legitimate target for nukes because terrorsts sometimes work from there? I seriously doubt it. So, knowing that, how does having nukes make us safer? Is our nuclear arsenal just another piece of American Security Theatre? I'm open to the possibility that having nukes and acquiring nukes from other countries makes us look strong, and that in itself is valuable. But I think it is equally possible that looking like we will bomb countries we percieve as weak makes us appear to be a bunch of cowboy bullies, which falls neatly into the terrorists' reasons for demonizing us.

I guess this is a difficult problem with no real conclusion, and nuclear weapons are not per se bad for us to have, but I'd love to hear more discussion about why we have them and why a world with nukes is safer for the US than a world without nukes.