核武器

No Bret, the U.S. Doesn’t Need More Nukes

08.14.19 | 4 min read | 文字Matt Korda

Last week, on the 74th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, many took time toreflectupon thedestructioncaused by the only uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. But not the纽约时报'Bret Stephens, who took the opportunity to argue in favor of building more nuclear weapons.

In an op-ed entitled“美国需要更多的核武器”。史蒂芬斯（Stephens）提出了反对武器控制的案子：“坏人作弊，好人都没有，”美国核武库一直在“越来越破旧”。

It’s a simple narrative; it’s also false. In fact, Stephens’ article is largely littered with bad analogies, flawed assumptions, and straight-up incorrect facts about the nature of nuclear weapons and arms control.

As examples of arms control agreements where the “bad guys cheat” and the “good guys don’t,” Stephens cites the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (from which the United States withdrew in 2002), the Iran Deal (which was working直到美国去年撤回），以及《凡尔赛条约》（这不是武器控制协议）等。除非您算出特朗普政府在2018年违反伊朗交易的行为，否则这些都不涉及“坏人”的重大作弊。

斯蒂芬斯还列举了中间核武器条约作为武器控制协议的主要例子。是的，看来俄罗斯可能通过开发和部署被禁止的地面邮轮导弹而违反了中间范围的核力量条约。但是，如we’ve written previously，特朗普决定退出条约的决定使美国不必要地同谋灭亡，并使俄罗斯免于恢复合规的责任和压力。与斯蒂芬斯的论文相反，当某人违反法律时，您不应该抛弃法律。

And contrary to the title of Stephens’ piece, the United States doesn’t need more nukes. As we explain in our latest美国核笔记本, the Trump administration wants to develop two new ones––a low-yield warhead and a sea-launched cruise missile––both of which are dangerous, and neither of which are necessary. Aside from lowering the threshold for nuclear use, the “low-yield” aspect of the low-yield warhead is a misnomer; it’s roughly one-third the yield of the Hiroshima bomb that killed 100,000 people. And the new sea-launched cruise missile is a concept brought back from the dead: the United States had one until 2013, when the Obama administrationretired it因为它毫无意义，浪费和政治争议。

除了他的公认否认在系统金博宝正规网址性饥饿，强奸文化和气候变化等问题中，斯蒂芬斯以鹰派而闻名 - 在核问题上常常不准确。在2013年，他声称伊朗的交易比张伯伦在1938年对希特勒的app脚还要糟糕。2017年，他argued赞成朝鲜政权改变。那年晚些时候，他嘲笑引用to ICAN––the group that won the Nobel Peace Prize for its work to ban nuclear weapons––as “another tediously bleating ‘No Nukes’ outfit.” In June, he写that “If Iran won’t change its behavior, we should sink its navy.” Remember, this is coming from a guy whoawardedIraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz “Man of the Year” in 2003 (The runners-up? Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and George W. Bush).

Furthermore, in last week’s piece, he erroneously stated that Iran repeatedly violated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a claim which the International Atomic Energy Agency—the international organization charged with monitoring Iran’s compliance––has continuously rebutted. Noticeably, Stephens linked to Mark Fitzpatrick’s work to back up his claim, but when Mark推文出于他的文章没有说出任何内容，链接已更改。现在，它引用了科学与国际安全研究所的戴维·奥尔布赖特（David Albright），他以其鹰派对伊朗的看法而闻名。

斯蒂芬斯的列显然强调了意识形态而不是准确性。并发表了关于长崎轰炸周年纪念日的亲核武器文章 - 不承认人类的核武器成本，甚至是周年纪念日的成本 - 表明他显然不受同情心的指导。

But perhaps most evidently, Stephens’ piece is driven by fear. And understandably so: we’re currently locked into an ever-increasing nuclear arms race with no signs of it slowing down. If you’re not afraid, you’re probably not paying attention. However, crying “more nukes” without articulating any kind of strategic vision isn’t going to get us out of this mess.

实际上，摆脱军备竞赛的最佳方法是拒绝比赛。美国不应以其他国家的调整方式来基于其核武库的规模 - 这只有在您认为核武器是为了打击战争时才有意义。但是，引用里根的古老格言，“核战争不能赢得胜利，绝对不能进行。”相反，正如全球零的所述替代核态势评估报告》, the United States should move towards a “deterrence-only” nuclear posture, which would allow for sizable cuts to the US nuclear arsenal without changing the strategic balance.

很简单，我们需要开始制定与我们面临的问题相同的雄心勃勃的解决方案。不仅需要反身核武器。

—

(image: Yosuke Yamahata, one day after the Nagasaki bombing)

This publication was made possible by generous contributions from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, theNew Land Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, and the Prospect Hill Foundation. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.