Heavy Members of Parliament of the United States have moved the "No First Use of Nuclear Weapons" Bill

Home > Military

Heavy Members of Parliament of the United States have moved the "No First Use of Nuclear Weapons" Bill

2019-01-31 10:25:47 239 ℃
On January 31, Defense News reported on its website that two Democratic heavyweights, Adam Smith, Chairman of the Military Commission of the House of Representatives, and members of the Military Commission of Senators, had announced their joint proposal by Elizabeth Warren, who had participated in the presidential election of 2020. The No First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act was enacted. US media reported that although it is unlikely that the motion will eventually become law and completely change the US nuclear policy of "first use of nuclear weapons" so far, its long-standing influence in the United States will be expanded due to the identity and influence of the two movers.

On November 29, Warren proposed in his speech at the Washington School of Law of the United States University that the United States should change to the "no first use" principle

. It is reported that the joint statement issued by Adam Smith and Elizabeth Warren stated that "China's current strategy is not only outdated but also dangerous", which read: "By clearly registering with me." The sole purpose of a national nuclear arsenal is deterrence. This bill will reduce the risk of nuclear misjudgment and help us maintain our leadership in the moral and diplomatic spheres of the world.

Previous Trump Administration's Nuclear Posture Assessment report clearly stated that the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first in the event of "serious non-nuclear strategic attacks", including attacks on the United States and its allies, as well as its nuclear facilities. Many parliamentarians believe that this principle of use is too broad, which increases the risk of miscarriage of justice in the conflict. Both MPs have previously expressed their intention to propose the bill. Last month, Warren called on the United States to change the "no-first-use" principle in a foreign policy speech, while Smith expressed similar views in a speech to anti-nuclear groups in November. Defense News believes that because Adam Smith is currently the chairman of the Military Committee of the House of Representatives, he may seek to present a "no-first-use" text in the 2020 Defense Authorization Act, which is bound to arouse opposition from Republicans in Congress.

reports that former US President Barack Obama considered revising the principle of "first use" in 2016, but ultimately failed to implement it. At that time, the government said that the reason why it did not change the principle of "first use" was that it might cause the US allies to lose confidence in the US nuclear umbrella and seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. In addition, Mr. Obama explained that the abandonment of the "first use" principle by the United States might lead, for example, North Korea, China and Russia, to believe that the use of nuclear weapons could overwhelm U.S. allies before the United States responds.

Since the possession of nuclear weapons, the United States has adopted the principle of "first use". Although the only active "militia 3" land-based intercontinental missile is old, its accuracy and equivalent are sufficient to destroy the enemy's reinforced intercontinental missile silo. Therefore, in the "first use" scenario, enemy guides will be destroyed as soon as possible through rapid and simultaneous firing. The missile silo

because the United States has the right to control the sea and has the most advanced nuclear submarine technology, its "Ohio" class strategic nuclear submarine and the above "Trident" missile also exist as the "first wave strike" weapon, which can be launched close to the enemy's coast, greatly shortening the early warning time, which is with the nuclear submarines of China and Russia. Ship's "fortress sea" strategy is the opposite. It is not a weapon of revenge

Observer Network military commentators said that the U.S. nuclear policy is based on the theory of aggression and blackmail, accusing China and Russia of "overwhelming U.S. allies before using nuclear weapons to react in the U.S." It is only the U.S. that regards its imagination as true - in fact, in recent decades, the U.S. New types of nuclear weapons with low equivalent have been developed. Many experts point out that their purpose is to use them against non-nuclear-weapon states or countries with low nuclear weapons levels. Yesterday, the U.S. Nuclear Safety Agency announced that the W76-2 low-equivalent nuclear bomb, whose equivalent is only 5-7,000 tons, is more powerful than any conventional bomb, but enough to ensure that the radius of radioactive contamination and destruction is basically within the "controllable" range. In addition, there are B61-12 precision guided low-equivalent nuclear bombs in the United States, whose equivalent can be adjusted from hundreds to thousands of tons. The main idea is to use bombs to drill deep into the rock to carry out nuclear explosion, so as to ensure that the shock wave of nuclear explosion is absorbed by the target to the maximum extent, thus causing seismic effects to destroy buried underground bunkers. Such bombs not only threaten the underground facilities of Iran, North Korea and other countries. And Russia has always accused the bomb of being a potential offensive strategic weapon that can also be used to destroy large powers'reinforced intercontinental missile silos.

The Trident intercontinental missile carried by the US "Ohio" nuclear submarine has a high reaction speed and precision, and the number and level of spy satellites deployed by the United States are high. Therefore, the United States considers itself capable of discovering signs of possible nuclear attack on the United States by its opponents, and claims that it will attack the enemy's nuclear weapons facilities through "preventive" nuclear attack at a time of crisis. In order to weaken the opponent's nuclear capability as much as possible and win the nuclear war. This is also the main logic of maintaining tens of thousands of nuclear bombs waiting to be launched during the peak period of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. In fact, there are not many warheads that actually aim at important industrial and population-centred targets, most of which are aimed at each other's missile facilities.

In the 1980s, the United States also considered the development of dynamic intercontinental missiles, which were far more viable than those deployed in fixed launching wells, but were not accurate enough to aim at destroying solid targets and could only be used to incinerate each other's cities, reflecting the fact that the United States could not maintain its advantage over the Soviet Union in nuclear power at that time. However, after the Cold War, the United States, which is the only country in the world in terms of quantity and quality of nuclear weapons and equipment, did not consider equipping such weapons mainly for nuclear retaliation

as compared with the United States in terms of strategic nuclear power, China and Russia attached more importance to the development of dynamic missiles for progressive use. Nuclear deterrence

Of course, after the signing of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (START) between the United States and Russia, the number of nuclear weapons on both sides was limited to a low level. However, thousands of warheads of each side still have the ability to destroy most of the key facilities on which modern human society depends. So the nuclear deterrence between the United States and Russia is still in a state where both sides will not be the first to use it in fact in a rational way - but the problem is that the United States still has the advantage of warheads and delivery tools for other countries with weaker nuclear power. In this case, as an emerging power, having only hundreds of warheads is obviously not enough to "use first" principle in the United States. On the premise of a truly effective nuclear deterrent to the United States, the United States will use its nuclear advantage to exert pressure in foreign negotiations, or call it the use of nuclear blackmail. It is precisely because the leaders of the emerging powers are fully aware of this issue, so in recent years their nuclear weapons quantity, quality, combat readiness level and the development of new missiles using new penetration principles are being implemented. In this context, the rhetoric of the "no-first-use" declaration made by the two parties in the context of the domestic political struggle is of little significance to the development and adjustment of other countries'nuclear strategies, because, as Henry Kissinger reminded people in his speech in 2018, "deterrence is based on ability, not will".