By: Joe Buff

Joe Buff — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:55:40 +0000

Aaron Holland has written another clear and cogent essay about a critically important issue. Kudos! I would please like here to simply reinforce Aaron’s very complete discussion: The subject of no-first-use can be confusing, even seductive to laymen, and soon-to-be-Dr. Holland’s concise article very efficiently and pointedy overviews the sound & compelling reasons to continue to REJECT the very idea — let alone the policy for America — of no first use. Some related talking points are these: (1) The value and importance of Strategic Ambiguity goes back at least to Henry Kissinger’s early writings on nuclear deterrence and warfighting. (2) No first use as a policy by ANY nuclear-armed and authoritarian country is unlikely to hold up under pressure of any sort of war which is escalating and which that country is losing. (3) Russia’s “escalate to win” doctrine utterly negates the thought of the U.S. adopting no first use. (4) Russia’s relentless and ruthless malign influence campaign to heighten “nuclear psychosis” in the U.S. is very probably supporting and even funding “progressive” support of no first use. (5) Brutal and even genocidal aggression by the CRINKs in hot spots worldwide, combined with their repeated violation of nuclear treaties and their rejection of nuclear arms control, in my mind negates the very idea of America weakening our nuclear posture in this way — or in any other way. (6) As other commentators have said for some time, methinks it clear that China’s claiming no first use is just disingenuous propaganda; China has a strategic culture of lying through their teeth to lull and disarm their adversaries.

Comments on: Maintaining America’s First-Use Policy

By: Joe Buff