In his “Ile Longue” speech on March 2, 2026, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a message that will echo across European capitals for years to come. For the first time, a European leader publicly articulated that France’s nuclear deterrent carries a distinctly “European dimension.” While the ultimate authority to launch remains the prerogative of the French President, Macron made it clear that an attack on a key European partner could trigger a French nuclear response. This is not a symbolic gesture: it reflects a growing recognition that Europe can no longer rely solely on the United States to guarantee its security. In a world where great-power priorities are increasingly transactional, Europe is beginning to define its own strategic boundaries.

The 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) reinforced this reality. By designating Russia as a “European responsibility,” the strategy signals a deliberate shift: Washington will focus its conventional forces on the homeland and the Indo-Pacific Theater, leaving Europe to confront the Russian threat largely on its own terms. The nuclear umbrella remains intact, but the implicit promise of automatic conventional reinforcement is fading. Even seemingly peripheral actions, such as elevating Greenland to a primary U.S. homeland interest alongside the Panama Canal, highlight an unmistakable message: European security is now secondary to America’s own global priorities. Transactions, not guarantees, define the relationship, and Europe is taking note.

This strategic recalibration has deepened a credibility gap that European policymakers cannot ignore. Repeatedly questioning of NATO’s relevance, combined with explicit demands for Europe to “Buy American,” has underscored a harsh truth: the U.S. is no longer a guaranteed partner for long-term security. European arms imports from the U.S. surged to $68 billion in 2024, a fivefold increase over the 2017–2021 average, while American threats of trade countermeasures in response to “Buy European” procurement rules have reinforced the perception that collective defense is contingent on economic acquiescence. For many in Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw, the lesson is stark: security can no longer be assumed; it must be actively prepared.

Europe’s response has been both practical and psychological. The continent is actively building a more integrated and networked continental defense architecture, driven by a growing demand for strategic autonomy—particularly in areas such as drone defense, air and missile defense, and long-range strike capabilities. This effort reflects a gradual shift toward forward deterrence, in which credible conventional capabilities are positioned to signal readiness and resilience in the face of potential aggression. Forward deterrence, therefore, is not simply about stationing troops or deploying hardware; it represents a broader strategic mindset in which Europe seeks to reduce its structural dependence on external guarantees. While European defense infrastructure is not yet fully independent of Washington, ongoing investments and integration efforts indicate a clear trajectory toward greater operational autonomy, with more robust capabilities expected to mature between 2025 and 2030.

Meanwhile, France and the United Kingdom through the Northwood Declaration are exploring ways to “Europeanize” their nuclear forces, offering broader protection to allied partners while retaining national control over launch decisions. Macron’s speech embodies this principle: strategic assets—including Rafale jets and the planned next-generation nuclear submarine, “The Invincible”—can now be dispersed across allied territory to provide strategic depth and complicate adversary calculations. For the first time, non-nuclear partners such as Germany and Poland are participating in joint exercises that directly interface with French nuclear capabilities. The psychological message is clear: Europe is beginning to assert a sovereign layer of deterrence that complements, rather than replaces, NATO’s structures.

Poland’s recent statement that it may eventually seek its own nuclear weapons, as President Tusk indicated, also highlights the accelerating sense of urgency in Eastern Europe. So here the question arises that While Macron’s “Europeanized” nuclear deterrent provides a layer of strategic depth, then why Poland seeks to own nuclear weapons? The answer is that Macron’s forward deterrence is not scaled to cover the entire continent comprehensively, particularly in regions most exposed to Russia. For Warsaw, the calculus is simple: if U.S. guarantees are increasingly transactional, and if NATO’s nuclear planning remains centered in France and the U.K., then relying solely on allied deterrence is insufficient.

This development illustrates two broader dynamics. First, it highlights the limits of “second-layer” nuclear deterrence. Even with France operationally dispersing assets and including non-nuclear allies in exercises, some countries may feel compelled to consider independent capabilities to ensure credible protection. Second, it signals that Europe’s forward deterrence is moving from theory into practice, not only in doctrine and exercises but in actual national policy deliberations. Warsaw’s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons is less a provocation than a symptom of the same trend already evident in France and Germany’s expanded conventional and nuclear postures: Europe is taking responsibility for its own security.

Hence, Macrons’ speech represents a redefinition of European strategic autonomy. Between 2021 and 2024, EU defense spending rose by 30 percent, reaching €326 billion, signaling a growing recognition that reliance on Washington alone is no longer sustainable. European governments are investing not just in hardware, but in doctrine, interoperability, and the credibility of their deterrent posture. Strategic autonomy, once rhetorically flourishing, has become an existential imperative. Forward deterrence and strategic autonomy are complementary layers of security designed to mitigate the risk of over-reliance on an American partner whose priorities may shift.

Europe is thus navigating a delicate balance. It is neither abandoning NATO nor discarding the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Instead, it is learning to prepare for a future in which guarantees are no longer unconditional. The era of unquestioned extended deterrence is ending, and the continent must act with foresight. Forward deterrence is more than a strategic posture; it is a signal to Moscow, to Washington, and to Europe’s own citizens that the continent is willing and able to take responsibility for its own defense.

Europe is no longer a passive theater under American protection. It is a region preparing to defend itself, thoughtfully and decisively, in a strategic environment defined by uncertainty, transactional alliances, and shifting global priorities. Macron’s “Ile Longue” speech may have been delivered in France, but its message resonates across the continent: the future of European security will be determined not by the automatic extension of U.S. deterrence, but by Europe’s own willingness to claim responsibility for its survival.

Qurat-Ul-Ain Shabbir, a PhD scholar at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, is currently serving as a Research Officer at the Centre for International Strategic Studies AJK. Her research interests lie in the global nuclear order and geopolitical dynamics. The views of the author are her own.

Beyond the American Umbrella: Europe’s Turn to Forward Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

After World War II, both Japan and Germany became allies of the United States while the Soviet Union became a serious enemy. Most importantly, the Soviet Union established in Eastern Europe an alliance of nations under the Warsaw Pact. Thus, a decades-long Cold War began.

It was widely assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded an era of global cooperation and the end of great power competition and conflict. Arms control brought about the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I and II) and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) agreements.

Today, however, as many military and diplomatic experts conclude, the dangers facing the United States and its allies are more complex and more serious than perhaps at any time since the end of WWII. Now, more than ever, arms control remains elusive.

Nuclear conflicts are now among the most serious potential dangers, including proliferation of nuclear weapons, the pending end to formal strategic arms limits, and the actual use of theater nuclear force arising out of existing conventional conflicts.

To lessen such dangers, nuclear abolitionists proffer numerous arms control proposals. Six ideas are most common: (1) a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons; (2) adoption of a “minimum deterrent” nuclear strategy; (3) the elimination of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); (4) a unilateral freeze of US nuclear force development; (5) an extension of New START nuclear arms limits; and (6) abandonment of any new theater nuclear forces such as the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) or the sea-launched cruise missile. All of these strategies harm American and allied security and make worse the strategic nuclear balance.

The US extended deterrent has, for 70 years, rested on the option of using nuclear force to stop massive conventional attacks on US forces and allies overseas. Depending on the regional military balance, such nuclear extended deterrent options were, and remain, viewed by our allies as central to keeping their nation safe from Soviet/Russian and Chinese aggression.

Minimum deterrence strategies assume the only retaliatory targets the US needs to hold at risk are adversary cities where a few hundred nuclear warheads are all that is needed to deter. This doctrine assumes Russia and China will be completely deterred by the fear of losing large numbers of their civilian population. But this ignores the fact that these regimes murdered millions of their own people to gain power—showing little value for human life. Even worse, a minimum deterrence strategy would also leave alive the leaders of such nations as well as their nuclear and conventional forces with which they will commit aggression.

Cutting out the land-based ICBM force and a third of the ballistic missile submarine force would unilaterally reduce the US strategic nuclear force to around 500 at-sea on-alert warheads. This would be only a third of the allowed New START treaty force and give an 8 to 1 to 18 to 1 Russian and Chinese advantage in nuclear weapons, respectively. This would ensure that both nations frequently use nuclear weapons for coercion and blackmail.

A freeze on American nuclear force development would be a deterrence disaster. The US has not yet fielded any portion of the modernized triad, which is not rusting into obsolescence. Russia has completed over 90 percent of its own modernization and China is well on its way to tripling the size of its nuclear force over the next decade. Neither would participate in a unilateral freeze. Again, the United States would face a far superior adversary.

An extension of New START sounds attractive but would be harmful to American interests. It would delay any needed uploading of American warheads. It would not affect or make transparent China’s breathtaking nuclear build-up. And without a sea change in Russian behavior, verifying current arms limits would still be impossible, given the past five years of treaty violations by Moscow.

The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission report of October 2023 emphasized the urgency of rebalancing the current gap in US regional nuclear forces. The SLCM-N and better theater air deterrence were key recommended upgrades, both of which would be eliminated by a number of these proposals. It is precisely this deterrence gap which Moscow has leveraged to limit US and allied assistance to Ukraine.

The restraint these arms control ideas wish upon the US military assumes that Russia and China will reciprocate. But in the multiple decades after the end of the Soviet Union, massive US restraint was eventually met with what Admiral Richard has described as a “breathtaking” Chinese build-up and a near matching Russian modernization. As former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown once warned, “We build, they build. We stop; they build.”

Now is the time to reject nuclear abolition for what it is, a purposeful effort to weaken the United States. American lives and freedom depend on it.

Peter Huessy is Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed are his own. 

Making Nuclear Blackmail Great Again was originally published on Global Security Review.

Though integrated deterrence outlines a comprehensive strategy, the complexities of integrating diverse tools and actors across multiple domains can be incredibly challenging. Coordinating actions between military, diplomatic, economic, and informational agencies require seamless communication, shared goals, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. Even then, it still may not work. It is arguable that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the first example of integrated deterrence’s failure.

Prioritizing non-military tools within an integrated deterrence strategy can mitigate the risk of escalation and unintended conflict while providing proportionate responses to aggression, potentially avoiding the need for military force. Despite the application of various non-military measures, Russia was not dissuaded from its invasion, demonstrating the limitations of this approach in altering aggressive behavior when considering the impacts on Russia’s political influence, economic stability, and military capabilities. Economic sanctions against Russia over the past two years are proving an abject failure, as are diplomatic efforts to isolate Russia.

The effectiveness of an integrated deterrence strategy hinges on the same factor as previous and long-standing deterrence strategies—the ability to credibly threaten and, if necessary, impose meaningful costs on adversaries. This is difficult to achieve, especially when dealing with adversaries who are willing to tolerate economic pain, information warfare, or other non-kinetic actions.

At its core, integrated deterrence is designed to be flexible and adaptable, allowing the US to tailor its response to specific threats and adversaries. Theoretically, this can make it more effective than traditional deterrence, but there is little evidence to support the theory. In fact, integrated deterrence has been successful at extending the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and has utterly failed to restore deterrence with Russia. Russia’s nuclear threats have proven more successful in deterring American and European intervention on behalf of Ukraine.

The complexity of integrated deterrence leaves it prone to miscalculation and misinterpretation, as adversaries may perceive certain actions as escalatory or provocative. This can lead to unintended consequences and increase the risk of conflict, rather than supporting deterrence. Implementing integrated deterrence requires significant resources and investment across multiple domains. This can strain budgets and create competition for resources between different agencies and priorities.

Alliances, a crucial aspect of integrated deterrence, are important, but relying too heavily on them for deterrence can create vulnerabilities if allies are unwilling or unable to meaningfully contribute capability. This undermines the credibility of the overall deterrent effort. The shift to integrated deterrence as a preferred strategy for discouraging aggression against the interests and allies of the United States has seemingly positioned Russia and China in an advantageous position to seize a small window of opportunity to reshape the global power dynamic, while potentially creating the opportunity for states such as North Korea and Iran to extend their regional objectives beyond words.

Alternative strategies to integrated deterrence could focus on revitalizing traditional military capabilities while fostering deeper diplomatic ties with allies. Bolstering conventional forces and modernizing nuclear arsenals can serve as a powerful deterrent by signaling a nation’s willingness and ability to defend its interests. Simultaneously, strengthening alliances and partnerships through information sharing, joint military exercises, and technology cooperation can create a united front against potential adversaries.

This multifaceted approach, combining hard power with robust alliances, may prove more effective in deterring aggression than relying solely on economic or informational tools. Moreover, a renewed focus on arms control agreements could reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation, contributing to a more stable security environment. Ultimately, a balanced strategy that leverages military might, diplomatic cooperation, and arms control measures could offer a more comprehensive and robust approach to deterring aggression in the 21st century.

Time will tell if the choice to apply a strategy of integrated deterrence convincingly reinforces the all too important “will” necessary for any effective deterrence strategy or it results in the United States grossly miscalculating its ability to deter with non-military and non-nuclear means. If the Biden administration is wrong, American interests around the world will suffer greatly.

Joshua Thibert is a Contributing Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS). With over 30 years of comprehensive expertise, his background encompasses roles as a former counterintelligence special agent within the Department of Defense and as a practitioner in compliance, security, and risk management in the private sector. The views expressed in this article are his own. 

American Legitimacy and Integrated Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

Today, international order is breaking down. Essays by Walter Russell Mead, Victor Davis Hanson, and Nadya Schadow, for example, detail this breakdown, and all reference China and Russia as top culprits. The October 2023 report from the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States likewise weighs in with an acute warning that China, Russia, North Korea (DPRK), (and soon Iran) are now in the business of using nuclear weapons as a coercive tool with which to secure their objectives—raising the danger of nuclear conflict to the highest level since the 1945 dawn of the nuclear age.

American nuclear deterrent strategy is part of the international order and prevented direct military conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. Throughout the Cold War, American extended deterrence over NATO and allies in the Pacific prevented, respectively, a Soviet invasion of Western Europe and a repeat of the DPRK invasion of the Republic of Korea (ROK).

During the Cold War’s nearly five-decade-long struggle, the US faced one nuclear-armed peer adversary. In  2022 as the head of US Strategic Command warned, the US will soon face not one but two nuclear-armed peer competitors and do so for the first time in its history.

The unique dangers of this environment are reflected by the manner with which Russia and China see deterrence. Their goals are not designed to prevent war, but to embolden both nations to successfully engage in aggression—such as against Ukraine and potentially against Taiwan. Their nuclear capability acts as an umbrella under which they succeed in preventing the United States from defending the rules-based order. If the US stands down, military aggression succeeds and is not deterred.

Today’s emerging strategic environment contains a change that is not fully appreciated. American conventional military superiority, for example, is believed to help guarantee American and allied security. The US kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and decimated ISIS a decade later—all through conventional military superiority. American strategy, then and now, relies on superior technology and precision weapons, all backed by the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

However, when President Yeltsin decreed in April 1999 that the Russian military would develop highly accurate and very low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons, he set Russia on a path that now enables President Vladimir Putin to dominate warfare in Europe. China is in the process of adopting a strategy that threatens to introduce limited nuclear strikes into the conventional battlefield mix—“escalate to win”—leading the former commander of US Strategic Command to conclude that American conventional battlefield superiority “cannot hold.”

Without a robust and credible nuclear deterrent to restrain adversaries from using nuclear weapons, American plans to prevail on the conventional battlefield will no longer hold. And equally invalid is the Global Zero assumption that the US can prevail on the battlefield if the United States relies on conventional forces in a conflict that goes nuclear.

What then can the US make of the push by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to rewrite the rules of international behavior? That is, what should Americans make of what Russia describes as the unfair unipolar agenda and Iran describes as the great “global arrogance”? Americans should certainly worry that the nation is unprepared for the years ahead.

China’s growing nuclear arsenal emboldens President Xi Jinping to run roughshod over the South China Sea and its Philippine neighbors—flying military aircraft and steaming naval vessels recklessly in international waters. China may also be assisting Venezuela’s effort to grab oil-rich areas of Guyana. This is all taking place at a time when China is seeking bases on the Persian Gulf and near Gibraltar.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and regular threats to use nuclear weapons need little description. This is at a time when Russia maintains at least a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons over the United States.

Nearly nuclear-armed Iran, partially under the protection of Moscow and Beijing, wages war through Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. The Iranians and their allies are killing thousands, grabbing commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf, assassinating regime opponents, and ransoming hostages. The American response is, at best, muted.

North Korea recklessly and with impunity fires hundreds of missiles over Japanese and ROK territory and manages a vast international criminal complex of drug running, human trafficking, and weapons transfers, all while imprisoning millions of its own people in the world’s worse gulag. This is all made possible by China. It is through Chinese banks that North Korea avoids sanctions and finances its ongoing mayhem, including its nuclear program.

In short, the United States faces a daunting challenge that it must manage if the American-led international order has any hope of surviving the growing challenges the mayhem brothers present. The time to act is now.

The Mayhem Brothers: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran was originally published on Global Security Review.

The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission’s report suggests that Russia and China’s large-scale nuclear programs pose “qualitatively new threats of opportunistic aggression” and raise the risk of future “cooperative two-theater aggression.” In their report and testimony, commission members clarify that written Russian strategy and doctrine envision limited first use of theater nuclear weapons to deter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), coerce war termination on favorable terms, and suggest larger-scale employment of theater nuclear weapons to defeat NATO in war, if a loss is likely.

And yet Russian emphasis on new nuclear weapons hardly ends here. Russia’s walkout from the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) reopens possibilities for it to test nuclear weapons. Indeed Putin warned that he is prepared to resume nuclear testing.

Stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus likewise adds to the threat of nuclear war in Europe. Russia also seeks to build nuclear power plants in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. These could become a basis for nuclear material exports back to Russia or other countries.

Chinese imports of nuclear materials from Russia hit a record high in 2022, stimulating widespread fears that Moscow is making it easier for China to produce weapons-grade uranium for its missiles. Moscow has also backtracked on its 2013 insistence that China must take part in any future arms control negotiations because China still refuses to do so. As Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov said in 2013, “We cannot endlessly negotiate with the United States the reduction and limitation of nuclear arms while some other countries are strengthening their nuclear and missile capabilities…. Making nuclear disarmament a multilateral process is becoming a necessity.”

However, Russia evidently cannot now insist on Chinese participation despite the Chinese nuclear threat to Russia. Thus, Rybakov now reiterates the official view that Chinese nuclear weapons do not threaten Russia even though several independent analysts argue to the contrary. Similarly, Russia’s newfound amity with North Korea is stimulating anxiety that Pyongynag’s natural demand for a quid pro quo for the one million artillery shells it gave Russia will lead Putin to support North Korea’s missile, nuclear, and space programs. It is already known that Moscow promised to help Pyongyang build satellites and followed through on that pledge recently—regarding its most recent launch. Other observers maintain that it would not be excessively difficult for Russia to provide North Korea with nuclear assistance.

Here again, there is a parallel precedent. Recently, Putin, in conversation with General Zhang Youxia, vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, stated that building on existing plans, Putin advocated closer cooperation in space with China, “including high-orbit assets, and new prospective types of weapons that will ensure strategic stability (i.e. likely nuclear weapons) of both Russia and the People’s Republic of China.”

Beyond these actions undermining nonproliferation, in general, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in particular, Russo-Iranian military cooperation is reportedly unprecedented, growing in scope, and comprises ballistic missile cooperation. There is also little doubt that Iran is coming closer to actually possessing a nuclear weapon.  

Indeed, Russia told the United Nations (UN) that it no longer needs to obey UN restrictions on giving Iran missile technology since Resolution 2231 (2015) recently expired.  And, at the same time, Iran is actively soliciting Russian help with its nuclear program.  Providing such help would, like all of the aforementioned activities, either break the spirit or even the letter of the NPT. In invading Ukraine, Moscow actually violated the NPT, which openly commits signatories not to invade non-nuclear states.

All of these Russian moves undermine nonproliferation and the NPT. And this list does not include the almost nightly wild nuclear threats to be heard daily on Russian TV and even among supposed experts. Certainly, experience repeatedly shows that the UN is unlikely to do more than inform and provide reports on the process.

Moscow and her friends are dismantling the structures of nuclear security. China, Iran, and North Korea are apparently intent on destroying the “guardrails” of international security, in general, and against nuclear use, in particular—all to obtain a free hand in realizing their imperial and aggressive dreams. This trend not only puts smaller states at increased risk, but it obligates the US and its nuclear allies to invest more in new and improved nuclear weapons. This is needed to restore deterrence that only justifies these aggressors’ paranoia, which drives them to nuclear weapons in the first place.

As the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States recommended, the US needs to update and renovate its nuclear arsenal to make it more fit for service in regard to today’s and tomorrow’s threats. This means technological renovation, more precision, greater flexibility, and very likely additional nuclear weapons. Yet at the same time America and her allies, in both Europe, Asia, and the Middle East need a conventional buildup as well to preserve deterrence at lower levels in both Europe and Asia so neither Russia nor China can start a conventional war in the expectation that it can use nuclear blackmail, as in the Ukraine, to deter NATO from defending vital interests.

Likewise, the United States and her allies abroad must also update and modernize conventional forces to deter either by punishment or deny lower-level threats that could also escalate—the Houthi threat to Red Sea shipping—in the belief that the organizers of these threats could control escalation and that the US is afraid to widen existing conflicts. Thus, as noted above, in the nuclear sphere too many states lost their reason and are tempting fate. Consequently, judgment in nuclear and other security areas is left to states who, as the record shows, are all too willing to behave as brutish beasts. Therefore, they must be stopped sooner than later.

Stephen Blank, PhD, is a Senior Consultant at the American Foreign Policy Council and a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

Proliferation’s Rising Threat was originally published on Global Security Review.

The article’s opening line sets the articles tone, “The world is entering a dangerous nuclear arms race unlike anything since the first atomic bomb, but it does not have to end in catastrophe.” The problem with this assertion is twofold.

First, the one example of nuclear arms racing we saw, which took place between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War, was likely responsible for the fact that the two great power never fought World War III. Rather than sparking conflict, the arms race deterred it.

Second, what is happening today is in no way comparable to the Cold War arms race, which saw global nuclear arms climb to a total of 63,632 fielded weapons in 1985. According to the Washington Post, the Russians field 1,588 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons and 1,912 tactical nuclear weapons. The Chinese number is less well known but the Department of Defense’s Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (2023) estimates the People’s Liberation Army fields about 500 nuclear weapons and will field about 1,500 by 2035. The same Washington Post article suggests the United States fields 1,644 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons and 200 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe—with no plans for growing the size of the American arsenal.

This about a 90 percent reduction in the number of fielded nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War. For example, the United States removed more than 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons from Europe between 1991 and 1993.

This means that the number of deployed strategic and tactical nuclear weapons for the three major powers sits at about 5,050 weapons. If you include the arsenals of India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, and the United Kingdom, the number rises to about 6,000 operationally deployed nuclear weapons.

It is hard to compare what is taking place today with what occurred during the Cold War. For an arms race to take place, there must be participants. The Biden administration has made it very clear; the United States will not increase the size of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Russia has the capacity to expand its arsenal rapidly. China is doing just that. The United States is sitting in the stands and watching its adversaries.

The editorial board then laments the lack of arms control agreements to prevent adversaries, the Chinese in particular, from growing the size of arsenal. If the editorial board shares the view of many within the arms control community, then they too incorrectly assume that all arms control agreements are inherently good and stabilizing. In reality, arms control agreements are only good when they advance the United States’ national interest, which is not synonymous with their very existence.

When you take into account Russian violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, the Vienna Document, Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, Opens Skies, Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, and likely violation of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the at all costs desire for arms control with Russia is too often a bad deal for the United States that sees the nation constrain its military capability while the Russian buy time to overcome military weakness.

In short, arms control for arms control sake is neither an inherent American interest, nor is it inherently stabilizing.

The editorial board also places great hope in recent meetings between the United States and China in which arms control was discussed. What the editorial board’s article fails to reveal is that the November talks were an utter failure in which the Chinese made it clear that no arms control agreement is possible.

Finally, there is a mistaken and unsubstantiated belief that more nuclear weapons is inherently destabilizing. This idea is not born out by the historical record. A careful reading of Cold War history makes it clear that the large Soviet and American nuclear arsenals of the era caused leaders in both the United States and Soviet Union to exercise great caution, avoid provocative actions, and demonstrate restraint in the face of uncertainty.

It is not strength that is provocative but weakness. If the United States seeks to ensure nuclear weapons are never used, it should meet the threat head on and follow the recommendations of the bi-partisan Strategic Posture Commission Report. Authoritarians respect strength. It is time the United States shifts from blind optimism to just that.

Adam Lowther is the Vice President for Research and co-founder of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies, and Curtis McGiffin in the Vice President for Education and co-founder of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

The Faux Nuclear Arms Race that Isn’t was originally published on Global Security Review.

After getting many high-level threat briefings from across the intelligence community and hearing from American allies, the commission found the US is running out of time to remedy a sharply deteriorating strategic nuclear environment. The speed of the threat is accelerating, leading the commission to recommend dozens of new initiatives, some to be initiated immediately, with the remainder fully implemented in a phased manner over the next fourteen years.

Notably, the commission recommended an even stronger bolstering of the delivery options and capacity of the modernized nuclear triad by deploying multiple warheads on the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), building a road-mobile version, adding more strategic Columbia-class submarines, and acquiring more B21 strategic bombers. Additionally, the commission recommended the deployment of an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) system for the protection of the continental United States against threats from China and Russia, including, if technologically feasible, space-based components.

Such missile and air defenses are critically important to deal with coercive nuclear threats from Russia and China, especially in the context of enemy “escalate to win” strategies. The commission concluded that China and Russia will both continue their aggressive policies seeking to replace the United States as the leading power in the world. And Russia and China will continue their modernization and expansion of their conventional, space, cyber, and nuclear capabilities.

The commission warned that regional conflicts with China and Russia are the most likely future conflicts and could escalate to direct confrontation. Expanding on this point, commission co-chairs Creedon and Kyl underscored, in Senate testimony, that “coercive or bullying strikes” with cruise and hypersonic missiles could be used to make the US “buckle” under Chinese or Russian threat.

Neo-isolationism was rejected. Instead, the commission implored the US to work with allies and cooperate with partners while improving American security policy. The whole-of-government approach was also noted as key to better deterrence policy, including diplomatic and financial measures.

One of the commission’s more interesting points was the emphasis on the urgency of these recommendations. This position was underscored by their assertion that even if many of their recommendations were adopted immediately the United States will lag until modernization programs are complete.

Nonetheless, commission proposals would be adopted in a phased manner as the United States moves from legacy forces to modernized elements of the nuclear enterprise. The period 2023–2027 is the first phase and beyond 2035 is the last phase, including building additional Columbia-class strategic submarines after the current 2042 planned program sunset.

The commission also highlighted the fact that the current nuclear program of record is based on an old assessment of the threat. For example, the program of record limits nuclear warheads to 1,550, a number that is insufficient for the current threat. Thus, an additional margin of deployed capability, including hundreds of new nuclear warheads, is desired.

It was also noted that, as compared to the strategic environment of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), it is important to acknowledge the dramatic changes of the past decade. For example, explained one commission member, at the time of the 2010 NPR, the US assumed China and Russia would engage with the US to help deal with that time period’s top nuclear priority, preventing nuclear proliferation to terrorists. This is no longer the primary concern.

The commission did encourage lessening American dependence on nuclear weapons, which lines up well with the current administration’s goals. However, the report indicated that strategy would require deep investments with the acquisition of not 100 but 200 or even 300 new stealth bombers along with the requisite number of new refueling aircraft to make such a recommendation possible.

Also of import was the commission’s recommendation that the US field the “hedge,” contained in all nuclear arms deals—adding to deployed nuclear warheads. Such an expansion of deployed warheads would be a reversal of American policy since the adoption of the START I reductions in 1991.

Nevertheless, the commission recommended the US maintain its targeting policy that avoids infrastructure and population centers while still holding at risk what America’s adversaries value most: their leadership, the security apparatus that maintains their power, and their exquisite weapons. The commission was open to future arms control agreements, but as Creedon explained, “[t]he prospects for arms control remain bleak.”

Finally, perhaps the most surprising statement came when the commission called for deployment of a national missile defense system. Not simply to defend against the growing North Korean “rogue” missile threat but to expand American missile and air defenses to the point of being able to credibly defeat “coercive nuclear threats” from China and Russia.

This change in US policy would jettison the notion that US missile defenses have to be “limited” in scope and defend only against rogue state threats. Such thinking assumed that a robust American missile defense would create an unstable strategic situation vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

In late 2002 Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the American withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty would have no deleterious impact on Russia’s security. Nevertheless, the United States has not deployed more than a relatively limited number of interceptors and currently has no plans for a space-based system, which is necessary for an effective national missile defense capability, a point the commission underscored.

To implement the recommendations found in the report, the commission estimated it would require 6 percent of the defense budget. Such an expenditure is certainly affordable. As former Secretary of Defense General James Mattis once said, “America can afford survival.”

Understanding the Strategic Posture Commission Report was originally published on Global Security Review.