The Implications of Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review

By Brenna Sullivan

After a year-long investigation, the Trump Administration finally released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) on February 2, 2018. While there is a lot to think about in the 16-page document, one key component did not escape Rachel Bronson, President and CEO of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Along with discussing the budget implications of the NPR ($1.2 trillion towards rebuilding the U.S. nuclear arsenal), Bronson points out that the NPR “lowers the threshold for which nuclear weapons can be used and argues for fielding smaller-yield, more ‘usable’ nuclear weapons” and calls for nuclear testing all while making zero priority for investing in science or technology that aim to reduce the likelihood of U.S. nuclear testing.

In thinking about the document, I found the U.S. also attempting to emphasize a long-term goal of nuclear weapon elimination alongside this short-term intention of increasing their nuclear stockpile. To simplify and further stress, our country is attempting to eliminate nuclear weapons through the creation of said tools. Their misleading justification can be put into one word: deterrence. According to the NPR, the U.S.’s possession of nuclear weapons not only is a defense tactic that prevents other countries from attacking us but it also serves as a means to keep other countries safe. My follow-up query to that thought is: safe from who? As the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another country, I would argue, and the global community could also rightfully argue, that it is us who should be feared as an offender not revered as a defender. In a competition where no one is a true winner, it is time for the U.S. to put down the tricky rhetoric and, rather than make impulsive, potentially deadly grasps for power, begin to use its leadership humbly, positioning itself first as a listener then as an actor. Only then may we as an international community begin to feel any sense of protection and therefore, peace.