Dear millennials and media: Relax on Trump nuclear comments

Earlier on Thursday morning, President-elect Donald Trump tweeted:

Twitter went nuts.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said nuclear experts were “stunned.” The New York Times’s Max Fisher warned of doom. Other verified Twitterati basked in despair.

Although Trump’s tweet was predictably short on specifics, so were the retaliatory tweets. Most were simple variations of ‘we’re all going to die,’ ‘Trump is nuts,’ we’re going to war,’ etc. And that victory of vapid emotionalism suggests few have seriously considered Trump’s tweet.

But if you do, you’ll realize that it doesn’t portend death.

For a start, the first operative word in Trump’s tweet is “strengthen.” And here at least, Trump is unequivocally correct. Centered around a “triad’’ of Air Force bombers and ground-based missiles, and Navy submarines, U.S. nuclear forces are diverse. However, they’re also old. And when comes to modernization, the submarine force is the priority. For one, the Ohio-class submarines bearing U.S. ‘Trident’ nuclear missiles first entered service 35 years ago. Today, with prospective U.S. adversaries, such as China and Russia, more able to detect these submarines, that ballistic missile fleet is vulnerable. This is not a controversial statement. It is a requirement of stable nuclear deterrence.

On the other hand, criticism of Trump’s second operative word, “expand,” is at least somewhat fair. We don’t need more nuclear warheads. At present, both Russia and the U.S. possess around 7,000 nuclear warheads each, a number sufficient to defend our interests. Were Trump to expand the U.S. warhead capacity by 1,000 or so, it would be a waste of money. That said, “expand” does not invoke impending Armageddon. Remember, multiple nuclear warheads are fixed to individual missiles. It’s not as if 7,000 nuclear weapons are floating around America. Conversely, as the chart below shows, the U.S. actually has a total of 800 deployable missiles and bombs. Also, U.S. nuclear security safeguards are by far the best in the world.

We must also consider the context of Trump’s tweet. After all, just two days ago, President Vladimir Putin of Russia said he would strengthen his nuclear force. But while most media commentators are suggesting that Putin and Trump’s similar comments prove an ongoing love affair, I believe the opposite assessment holds. First, Putin has no interest in the U.S. expanding or modernizing its nuclear force. On the contrary, Russian (and before it, Soviet) policy is predicated on a long-term degradation of the NATO nuclear umbrella. That’s why the Russians support anti-nuclear protesters and politicians, and that’s why Putin freaks out every time the U.S. conducts missile exercises. I believe Trump sent out his tweet after being notified of Putin’s comments in his latest intelligence briefing. Note the timing of his tweet: late morning, which is exactly after most intelligence briefings are given. But even if he tweeted for some random reason, in replicating Putin’s message, Trump did something he does far too sparingly. He challenged Putin eye-to-eye. Or at least tweet-to-eye!

And that speaks to something else.

Ultimately, I think the uproar over this tweet is down to bias. Namely, commentators who despise Trump and want to attack him for any reason. Don’t get me wrong, some of Trump’s national security views are delusional, but there’s hypocrisy here. Because President Obama’s nuclear policy has been anything but impressive. President Obama has reduced deployed U.S. warheads and frayed U.S. deterrent credibility. Reports earlier this year suggested that Mr. Obama might even change U.S. policy to rule out first nuclear strikes (something that would leave the U.S. impotent as adversaries mobilized their nuclear forces for a devastating attack). Regardless, President Obama’s nuclear legacy has been the worst of combinations: a mix of short-sighted idealism, delusion, and overt weakness.

The comparisons between Trump and Obama matter, because effective nuclear deterrence is not simple. It requires strategic nuance and technical complexity. Consider, for example, that U.S. deterrent strategy is designed not just to deter nuclear attacks, but “to convince potential adversaries they cannot successfully escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression against the United States or its allies and partners.” The U.S. wants its enemies to know that if they are near defeat by U.S. conventional forces, their best option is negotiated surrender. We want our enemies to know that any nuclear escalation will lead to their expedient annihilation. Be under no illusions, this is an especially important strategic check on the calculations of regimes such as Iran. But it’s only one facet of nuclear strategy.

Sure, we must hope and pray that nuclear weapons are never again used. Nevertheless, today’s tweet was not a harbinger of global apocalypse. Breathe freely.