Will US promise "no-first-use" policy for nuclear weapons?

美国会承诺“不首先使用核武器”?

Source
China Military Online
Editor
Wang Xinjuan
Time
2021-08-24 10:15:41

刘文龙

By Liu Wenlong

近日,包括前国防部长威廉·佩里在内的美国前官员和军控专家在写给日本首相和各政党的公开信中表示,希望日本政党不要反对美国可能采取的“不首先使用核武器”政策立场。另有报道称,拜登政府正在酝酿推出新的《核态势评估报告》,届时可能明确“不首先使用核武器”政策。

Recently, in an open letter on nuclear disarmament, a group of former US officials, including former defense secretary William Perry, and experts asked Japanese political parties not to oppose a "no-first-use " nuclear stance that may be adopted by the US. It is reported that the Biden administration is initiating a new Nuclear Posture Review, which is likely to clarify the “no-first-use” nuclear policy.

美国是世界上唯一在实战中使用过核武器的国家,也是当前世界拥核国家中一直保持“核模糊”政策的核大国。

As the only country that has used nuclear weapons in actual combat, the US is the only nuclear power whose nuclear weapon policy remains vague.

尽管奥巴马担任美国总统期间,曾两次讨论“不首先使用核武器”政策,并提出所谓建立“无核世界”的口号,但在2010年美国防部发布的《核态势评估报告》中,并未承诺“不首先使用核武器”。

Although the Obama government discussed the “no-first-use” nuclear policy twice and proposed building a "world without nuclear weapons", the US didn't promise "not to use nuclear weapons first" in the Nuclear Posture Review published in 2010 by its Department of Defense.

考虑到核武器对美国有双重战略价值——威慑战略对手和控制盟友,美国绝不会放弃核武器。尤其是在当前美国综合实力和声望不断下跌的背景下,核武器更是其牢牢抓住盟友、控制盟友的有力手段。

Considering that nuclear weapons have dual strategic importance for the US – deterring strategic rivals and controlling allies, it is impossible for the US to give up nuclear weapons. As the US is seeing a continuous decline in its overall strength and international prestige, in particular, nuclear weapons are effective means for it to enchain and control its allies.

分析人士指出,如今美国国内重提这一立场,或意在增加核军控谈判筹码,试图在美俄就战略稳定进行对话之际,树立本国核安全形象,增加核军控谈判筹码,遏制俄罗斯等国核武器发展,并将其他拥核国家拉到核裁军谈判桌前。

Analysts point out that the US re-proposing the policy may aim to strengthen its hand in nuclear disarmament talks. As it conducts dialogue with Russia on maintaining strategic stability, this move tries to improve its international image in nuclear security, increase its advantage in nuclear weapon control negotiations, pin down the development of nuclear weapons of countries like Russia, and bring other countries with nuclear weapons to the negotiation table.

尽管拜登所在的民主党历来有支持军控政策的传统,但受多重因素影响,即便拜登政府明确提出“不首先使用核武器”,后续落实也存在问题。

Although the Democrats, led by Biden, have the tradition of supporting the arms control policy, the subsequent implement will not be smooth due to multiple factors, even if the Biden administration announces the "no-first-use" nuclear stance.

首先,非对称核威慑观念根深蒂固。据估计,美国当前拥有6000枚核弹,拥有绝对核威慑优势。基于以往核军备竞赛可知,美国所追求的核优势并非仅局限于保卫国土安全,而是基于核武器支撑的全球霸权。继续保持“核模糊”战略,不仅能够拥有面对威胁时的自主选择余地,还能提升威慑对手的能力。

Firstly, the mindset of asymmetric nuclear deterrence is deeply rooted in the US government. It is estimated that the US has 6,000 nuclear warheads, ensuring its absolute advantage in nuclear deterrence. The past nuclear arms races have proved that the nuclear superiority that the US pursues is not merely to maintain homeland security, but to seek nuclear weapon-backed global hegemony. To continue a vague nuclear policy will enable the US not only to have enough space of autonomy in response to nuclear threats but also to enhance its capacity to deter rivals.

其次,先发制人战略难以割舍。美国国内存在强烈的核依赖思想,不会轻易允许美国核政策由主动变为被动。并且,美国最新《核态势评估报告》明确指出,当美国及其盟友遭到核攻击和所谓非核战略攻击时,美国需使用核武器。可以说,这份报告表明美国在核武器使用方面有极大的自由度,而对于什么才是国家重大利益,并未给出明确定义。也就是说,美国自己定义国家重大利益,掌握先发制人的选择权。

Secondly, it is hard for the US to give up the "preemptive strike" strategy. The US has a strong mindset in reliance on nuclear weapons, and it won't easily shift from "active" to "passive" in nuclear stance. Moreover, the latest Nuclear Posture Review clarified that the US needs to use nuclear weapons if it and its allies face nuclear attacks and non-nuclear attacks. The report indicates the US has high-degree autonomy in the use of nuclear weapons, and it doesn't give a clear definition of "vital interests". In other words, the US can define its "vital interests"on its own and secure the right to launch "preemptive strikes".

另据报道,未来10年美国将投资4000亿美元发展新型核武器,特别是发展所谓可以灵活使用的低当量核武器。如果美国现在宣布“不首先使用核武器”,那此前投资也将变得没有意义。

It is also reported that the US will invest US$400 billion to develop new nuclear weapons, especially low-yield nuclear weapons that can be used flexibly in the next 10 years. If the US adopts the "no-first-use" nuclear policy, the previous investments will be in vain.

再次,军火商将极力阻挠。“不首先使用核武器”政策将在一定程度上降低核武器的重要程度,同时间接影响美国军火商的利益。美国2022财年国防预算显示,新型核武器运载工具预算达数十亿美元,资金主要流向洛克希德·马丁、通用动力、霍尼韦尔等军火商。据《福布斯》杂志统计,仅2020年,主要核武器供应商的竞选捐款就超过了3100万美元,其中很大一部分用于游说和宣传核政策的合法性,以及核武器支出的合理性。

Thirdly, arms producers and dealers will make every effort to thwart the policy. To a certain extent, the "no-first-use" nuclear policy will reduce the strategic importance of nuclear weapons, thus indirectly impacting the interests of US arms producers and dealers. The FY 2022 Defense Budget shows that the US will invest billions of US dollars in developing new-type nuclear warhead carriers, and the money will mainly flow into the pockets of arms producers such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Honeywell. According to data released by magazine Forbes, in 2020 alone, major nuclear weapon producers donated funds of more than US$31 million to elections, of which a large proportion was used to lobby and advocate for the legitimacy of the nuclear policy and the reasonability of nuclear weapon expenditures.

最后,美国盟友或反对。美国全球同盟体系建立在其所提供的核保护能力上,该体系不仅是美国军事力量的延伸,也是其控制盟友的手段。如果美国核政策转变为被动防御式,意味着美国所提供的核安全保护将大打折扣,使一些盟友感到“心慌”。据悉,奥巴马时期的核政策就曾遭到日本方面强烈反对。

Finally, the policy may be opposed by US allies. The US’ global alliance system is built on its capacity to provide nuclear protection for its allies, which is not only an extension of the US military power but also an effective means to control its allies. If its nuclear policy shifts towards “passive defense,” the nuclear protection provided by the US will be weakened and make some allies “insecure.” It is learned that the nuclear policy of the Obama administration was once strongly opposed by Japan.

综上,在各方利益驱动下,美国此时发出的“不首先使用核武器”信号实则是在“核模糊”立场下的虚晃一枪,实际意义不大。

In summary, driven by the interests of various parties, the signal sent by the US that it will adopt a "no-first-use" nuclear policy is a gimmick under its "vague nuclear stance", which will make little difference in reality.

 

Related News

Continue...