Blog military spending, Nuclear Deterrence, Peace Economy, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Nuclear Policy peace April 22, 2025 0 Comments

Hegseth’s Doctrine: The Wrong Turn for U.S. Security

In his recent “Message to the Force,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth outlined a dramatic shift in American nuclear policy — one that he frames as a rebirth of deterrence, a restoration of a “warrior ethos,” and a response to what he sees as an emboldening of U.S. adversaries. But while this doctrine claims to reinforce national strength, its deeper implications risk ushering in a new era of arms races, global instability, and the continued erosion of diplomatic solutions.

At Peace Economy Project, like the majority of Americans, we believe true security comes not from fear, escalation, or dominance — but from restraint, diplomacy, and investments in human well-being.

From Deterrence to Dangerous Brinkmanship

Hegseth’s emphasis on revitalizing American deterrence through overwhelming strength and a hardened “warfighting mindset” marks a move away from decades of carefully constructed nuclear restraint. It echoes the Cold War mentality that normalized the idea of preparing for — and surviving — a nuclear conflict.

stephen-cobb-ls82dpWdpk4-unsplash-1024x862 Hegseth’s Doctrine: The Wrong Turn for U.S. Security

The danger here is twofold:

The normalization of nuclear “warfighting” lowers the threshold for use, increasing the risk of miscalculation or preemptive strikes.
A new arms race — especially with China projected to reach nuclear parity by 2035 — could accelerate global nuclear proliferation.

Rather than advancing stability, this posture fosters fear and division at a time when global cooperation is more urgent than ever.

Below: Matthew Bunn, a professor specializing in nuclear arms control at Harvard’s Kennedy School, tells NPR’s Ayesha Rascoe about concerns over a new nuclear arms race as the U.S. looks increasingly inward.

The Warrior Ethos vs. Human Security

By centering military might and combat-readiness as the pillars of U.S. leadership, Hegseth’s strategy sidelines what the American people — and the world — truly need: leadership rooted in peace, diplomacy, and care.

We are facing a world shaped by:
Climate catastrophe
Economic inequality
Public health crises
Mass migration driven by conflict and instability

None of these issues will be resolved by a hypersonic missile or quantum-proof encryption. The billions being allocated to modernize the nuclear triad and expand military capabilities could instead fund housing, healthcare, education, and climate solutions — investments that build peace at home and abroad.

Deterrence Through Diplomacy, Not Dominance

Secretary Hegseth’s doctrine assumes that adversaries will act rationally in the face of overwhelming force. But history tells us that deterrence rooted in dominance often provokes counter-escalation — not compliance. The Cuban Missile Crisis, often cited as a case study in nuclear brinkmanship, was ultimately defused not by firepower, but by diplomacy and backchannel negotiations.

Rather than deepen our military footprint or posture aggressively through alliances like AUKUS or NATO nuclear-sharing, the U.S. should reinvest in:

Multilateral arms control agreements
Global disarmament dialogues
Confidence-building measures with adversaries and allies alike

A Call for a Peace-First Foreign Policy

We must resist the false binary of “strength or surrender.” True strength lies in the courage to de-escalate, to lead by example, and to build systems that prioritize life over destruction.

If we continue to pour billions into nuclear “readiness,” we do so at the cost of urgent human needs. The United States already spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. The question is not whether we can afford peace — it’s whether we can survive without it.