shiv wrote:
These are just my thoughts on how the US might see the issue of nukes globally. No claim that my views are correct. Just conjecture.
The issue of nukes and US policy has to be looked at from the prism of "Global Dominance", to make any sense of it. It is the ultimate weapon of hard power. Hard power being a requisite to further the agenda of global domination.
But when it comes to the sustained ability to dominate world affairs, another dimension one of cost, comes into play. So the question becomes, what is the least costly and the most effective way to dominate global affairs?
MAD was a response to a perceived or real existential threat by an opposing power, with the ability to threaten the US with the ultimate weapon of hard power. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this ideological based existential threat, no longer exists, to a large degree, even though the capability exists. Hence the focus has shifted from an over reliance on hard power only to a far more complex set of tools, but at the end of the day measured by the cost and effectiveness of these tools to further the agenda of global dominance.
Since the past two decades the focus has shifted to more tools in the form of various treaties, global and regional summits on all types of topics, which at the end of the day, keeps the US in a dominating position or at least a first among equals.
Even the START treaties are less about reduction of US and Soviet arsenal, as both get what they want - without a serious dilution in their capabilities, but act more as a message booster to China, India and Pakistan to rein their weapons in. The message is look even we are doing reducing so there is no reason for China to panic as both US and Russia are reining it in, which in turn gives a message to India that look China is not expanding, and then to Pakistan that look India is not expanding. The IUCNA being a specific example to bolster the argument.
To sum it up, it is in US interests to give the message to the nuclear haves to rein it in and in turn also to show to the have nots that look, all are reining their weapons in, so no need to worry. It is a strategy to lower the costs of global dominance through the use of other tools (treaties, globalization of markets, etc). This strategy will work, until such time, another power with the ability to either threaten such dominance, through the exclusive use of hard power (like the SU) and/or someone with a far more sophisticated wherewithal to lay a counter web of treaties and other tools, threatens this US global dominance agenda. This is where the potential of PRC comes in. The SCO is its first salvo. JMT.
Added: The above strategy then leaves out only "rogue" powers, unwilling to play by the minimum set of rules, as laid down by the US, to be managed. Today, they are namely: N. Korea and Iran. Hoping that both can fall into line, through a combination of carrots and sticks, and hope that they do not cross a line (such as threaten direct US interests). If they do that then the US has to increase its costs to manage the situation again, as evidenced with the case of Saddam's Iraq (even if the actual reasons on Iraq were debatable, perceived threats are enough to justify this escalation) and the Taleban led Afghanistan.
)