On Dec. 17, the New York Times ran the eleventh article in an ongoing “Opinion” series about nuclear war, “At the Brink,” researched and written by their “Editorial Board,” which they describe as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” The Times is also careful to disclose: “This Times Opinion series is funded through philanthropic support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Outrider Foundation and the Prospect Hill Foundation. Funders have no control over the selection or focus of articles or the editing process and do not review articles before publication. The Times retains full editorial control.”
The Dec. 17 Opinion piece, “The President’s Arsenal,” is therefore a kind of joint op-ed, authored—as are many of the others in the series—by W.J. Hennigan, who has written about military and security issues for 15 years.
The article and associated video adopt a moderate, reasoned tone to argue that Donald Trump, in his second term in office, can take historical steps to move the world away from the danger of nuclear war, which has grown sharply over recent decades. “On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump commented on the peril posed by the rest of the world’s growing nuclear arsenals. His return to the White House offers new opportunities for him to steer America clear of those threats. His administration will need to act urgently and with creativity, all while also demonstrating the understanding that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be brandished as a cudgel.”
The article argues that “not all aspects of this contest are zero-sum, especially in nuclear weapons matters. There are ample opportunities for all sides to improve their own national security conditions by staving off a costly arms race and dangerous confrontation.”
The urgent problem is that “the last remaining major bilateral accord limiting the United States’ and Russia’s arsenals, New START, expires in just 14 months…. We are on the precipice of living in a world that has no restraints on how many nuclear weapons are deployed.” The Editorial Board does state that Trump is responsible for some of it: “Mr. Trump’s first administration refused to sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons…. It also unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [INF Treaty] and the Open Skies Treaty…. Yet, given the changed landscape, the United States will have no choice but to lead—something that, based on his campaign rhetoric, Mr. Trump appears to embrace.”
The steps that Hennigan calls on Trump to take, are:
“I. America should renew arms control talks…. American diplomats have no choice but to figure out how to restart sustained arms control negotiations and lay the groundwork for future generations to complete the job of nuclear disarmament…. To entice China to the table, Mr. Trump could express an openness to declare that the United States would not be the first to use nuclear weapons…. A willingness to engage on a blanket no-first-use policy may ease tensions and provide a foothold for more ambitious discussions.
“II. America should ensure nuclear testing bans stay put…. The next Trump administration should work to make sure it remains in effect….
“III. America should review U.S. spending…. Why must the U.S. military replace all of its weapons in one go? Hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved simply by buying fewer of them….
“IV. America should end sole authority….”
That last point raises Constitutional issues. Hennigan writes: “In the United States, only the President can decide whether to use nuclear weapons. It’s an extraordinary instance in which Mr. Trump’s decision-making power will be absolute. He will not need to consult Congress, the courts or senior advisers on when or how to use them. He will have a free hand to craft our nation’s nuclear posture, policy and diplomacy.”
Hennigan does not propose to remove “Mr. Trump’s ability to respond to a nuclear attack, an authority all Presidents have had and should have.” However, legislation should be adopted to “prohibit any President from launching a first-strike nuclear weapon without congressional approval…. A pre-emptive nuclear strike should also be endorsed by Congress.”
That is ludicrous on the face of it, since surprise is the essence of any pre-emptive strike. It also contradicts Hennigan’s earlier proposal that the U.S. adopt a no-first-use doctrine.
The New York Times Editorial Board article concludes: “Donald Trump ran a campaign of peace through strength. Time will tell if he can deliver what he promised. But all Americans should rejoice if Mr. Trump leaves the world a safer place from nuclear weapons than it was when he took office for the second time.”
