The following non-italic text are the main paragraphs from Congressman Seth Moulton’s answer to the Bedford Democratic Town Committee’s petition asking him to support the Markey S200/H669 Bill. Comments in this type are mine.
–Brown Pulliam, 17 June 2017
Moulton: Our national security is of the utmost importance to me, and I do not take President Trump’s statements lightly. However, retaining a degree of nuclear ambiguity helps to deter nuclear war, as potential aggressors such as Russia, China, and North Korea must contemplate the reality that if they attack us or our allies, these nations risk possible US nuclear retaliation. A no first use policy would degrade deterrence by eliminating that ambiguity for US adversaries. While I would not advocate for the actual exercise of first use, the deterrent value it provides gives us power and leverage, which enhances our national security and the security of our allies.
Moulton’s answer is non-responsive by intent, or he simply misunderstands Markey’s Bill. Neither S200/HR669, nor the Petition in support of that Bill by the Bedford Democratic Town Committee, would call for a “no first use policy”. The Bills would require The Congress to vote a Declaration of War before the President would be allowed to order a first Nuclear strike.
Seth Moulton’s oath of office to defend the Constitution should compel him to return the decision regarding a first strike of any kind to The Congress, as stipulated by Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
My remaining remarks speak to the premise that The Congress and the President should adopt a clear policy of NO NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE.
I interpret Moulton’s first paragraph to refer to the possibility that upon an attack against us or our allies with conventional weapons, that we might choose to reply with a nuclear first use. How he expects that this kind of ambiguity “helps to deter nuclear war” I cannot understand.
A knowledgeable friend has noted historically that: “on at least 11 documented occasions, U.S. presidents seriously considered or threatened to use nuclear weapons against an adversary without Congressional consultation much less approval.” In this context, part of Moulton’s last sentence above “the deterrent value it provides gives us power and leverage” makes me shudder. How can any sane person assert that by using our nuclear might as an ambiguous threat we would enhance our national security?
The best deterrent is a solid affirmation, with no exceptions, of No First Use. Our war policies in the last 50 years have stripped away any moral authority we could claim after WW2, and talking now of the power and leverage we gain by wielding our overwhelming deterrent certainly squanders the last remnant of our former greatness.
Moulton: Even as we work towards reducing nuclear stockpiles worldwide, this deterrent capability will remain important until we achieve nuclear disarmament. Some of our closest allies oppose the United States changing to a no-first use policy and believe that ambiguity in our nuclear policy is an important deterrent tool. It is also worth noting that we have certain obligations to these allies due to formal defense treaties.
If we are bound by a treaty to declare War anytime an ally gets attacked, that treaty is obviously in violation of our Constitution.
Moulton: A no first use policy would also mean that the US could no longer reassure its allies with its nuclear umbrella.
As we protect ourselves with conventional weapons, so can we offer the same to our allies, but a nuclear umbrella against a conventional attack is an obscenity.
Moulton: Our adversaries would no longer confront the risk of US nuclear retaliation when considering an attack on US allies. This might compel some allies and partners who have forgone developing nuclear weapons based on the promise of a US nuclear umbrella, such as Japan and South Korea, to consider acquiring their own nuclear weapons.
The best way we could deter our allies from arming themselves with nuclear weapons is to reduce our own arsenal by about 80%. It should have the additional advantage of halting further expansion of weapons programs in China and Russia. And that 20% of what we have now would still be much more than sufficient to prevent anyone, even the North Koreans, from doing anything foolish. It could also spell the return of rationality and a real attempt at arms control.
Moulton: As your representative, I work every day to defend American interests and the American people. Our government must work together to prevent the devastation of nuclear war and keep America safe. While President Trump’s comments on nuclear weapons are unnerving, our nuclear arsenal exists to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against a nuclear attack. Deterrence rests on the notion of mutual destruction and so long as nuclear weapons exist, this doctrine must remain intact.
I do not accept the validity of Mutually Assured Destruction. Historians wonder at the collective stupidity of the political and military leaders that mutilated Europe with WW1. I have about the same level of confidence in our current world leaders, civilian and military. Unfortunately, after we pay our nuclear bills, there may not be any historians left to make a judgment.
Rest assured that I will continue to closely monitor President Trump’s actions and our national security as we work to protect stability, security, and American values at home and abroad.
Seth Moulton