-
周波:是时候要求美国、北约和俄罗斯“不首先使用”核武器了
Zhou Bo: World needs ‘no first use’ pledge by US, Nato and Russia to avoid nuclear war
Nuclear weapons look awfully important again. Given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s not-so-thinly veiled warning of a nuclear attack, it is a fool’s errand to talk about nuclear disarmament now. One can imagine that North Korea thinks it is fortunate to have developed nuclear weapons, and one can only guess which would-be nuclear state might crop up next in Asia and the Middle East.
We are stepping into a nuclear jungle where nukes are like low-hanging fruit swaying enticingly. But if “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, as the five nuclear powers vowed in a joint statement in January, then one realistic step is that they pledge not to be the first to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against each other.
This is possible for all nuclear powers as it won’t compromise their effective deterrence. Since it detonated a nuclear device in 1964, China has pledged a policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. It says its nuclear strategies and policies are the most stable, sustainable and predictable among the nuclear powers.
The US Department of Defence announced last month in its Nuclear Posture Review that it “would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners”. Such a view is a step back from US President Joe Biden’s previous position that the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is deterring – and if necessary, retaliating against – a nuclear attack. Such a position is only a stone’s throw from a no first use policy.
The United States can afford to make a no first use commitment more than any other country because it has overwhelming conventional military superiority. One can hardly cite a mission the US could not accomplish with conventional weapons.
The gap between the conventional forces of the People’s Liberation Army and the US military is closing in the western Pacific, but it is difficult to imagine a potential conflict in which the US would have to launch a nuclear strike first against China.
The primary concern over America’s nuclear policy comes from US allies who are worried about their security without the American nuclear umbrella. “Great powers don’t commit suicide for their allies”, as Henry Kissinger is often quoted as saying.
They do not have to worry. Knowing a nuclear strike on any US ally will almost certainly invite a devastating nuclear retaliation, an adversary is unlikely to launch a nuclear strike first. If the US could negotiate a “no first use” agreement with North Korea, it might discourage Pyongyang from further developing nuclear weapons.
Mutual assurance on no first use can serve as the first step in establishing strategic stability between Beijing and Washington. The Pentagon reportedly worries that China could triple its nuclear arsenal to 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.
Even if this turns out to be true, China’s nuclear stockpile is still only a fraction of that of the US. To talk about nuclear equilibrium, China would have to drastically increase its number of nuclear weapons or the US would have to reduce its stockpile to China’s level. Neither is possible.
The real challenge is how to get Russia involved. In June 1982, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev made the no first use pledge at the United Nations because Moscow was confident about the advantages of its conventional military forces on the battlefield over Nato in Europe. As the Russian conventional military forces deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Russia dropped its pledge in 1993.
If Russia believes its “escalate to de-escalate” strategy has deterred the US from sending troops to intervene in Ukraine, it needs to think again. No matter how formidable nuclear weapons seem, they did not help the US in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
They have not helped Moscow in mitigating Ukraine’s strong resistance against Russia’s invasion, either. Instead, Putin’s threat on the possible use of nuclear weapons has severely tarnished the image of Russia. In a 2018 documentary, Putin asked, “why do we need a world without Russia in it?”. The better question is, where would Russia be without the world?
Security in Europe rests on whether Russia and Nato can eventually make a deal. The transatlantic alliance can afford to pledge no first use, even unilaterally, against a Russia which relies on nuclear weapons more than ever. It is hard to imagine why Russia would in any circumstances launch a nuclear strike against a grouping that has 30 member states, including three with nuclear weapons.
In 2001, China and Russia agreed not to be the first to use nuclear weapons against each other or target strategic nuclear missiles against each other. If a similar agreement could be made between China and the US, then reaching an agreement between the US, Nato and Russia would become easier.
Here is a good lesson to learn. In the wake of the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998, China and the US came to a joint declaration that they would not target each other with their nuclear weapons to demonstrate solidarity. This led to a joint statement among the five nuclear-weapon states in 2000 that their nuclear weapons are not targeted at each other or at any other states.
Critics might argue that de-targeting weapons without verification is only symbolic. But, in the nuclear arena, even symbolism is useful if it holds the nuclear powers morally responsible for the security of others. A pledge of no first use is a huge step forward in nuclear disarmament. It tells us a nuclear weapon-free world, however distant, is still possible one day.
Senior Colonel Zhou Bo (ret) is a senior fellow of the Centre for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University and a China Forum expert
本文系观察者网独家稿件,文章内容纯属作者个人观点,不代表平台观点,未经授权,不得转载,否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn,每日阅读趣味文章。
-
本文仅代表作者个人观点。
- 责任编辑: 小婷 
-
“美国密谋,帮波兰在乌克兰夺回领土”
2022-04-29 16:22 乌克兰之殇 -
中韩海上执法部门开展中韩渔业协定暂定措施水域联合巡航
2022-04-29 16:19 三八线之南 -
欧美巨头出售俄石油资产,印度建议国有企业“接盘”
2022-04-29 15:17 -
我使馆工作组赴卡拉奇吊唁恐袭事件遇难中国同胞
2022-04-29 14:14 -
为拍流量小视频多次整蛊南加大,玩过头了…
2022-04-29 14:09 -
美国现儿童肝炎首例死亡病例
2022-04-29 13:19 -
哈萨克斯坦将废止《首任总统法》,纳扎尔巴耶夫会失去哪些特权?
2022-04-29 13:17 -
RT总编回应“核战争”选项:总有一天我们都会死
2022-04-29 12:09 乌克兰之殇 -
美国防部报告:在阿富汗遗弃了70亿美元军事装备
2022-04-29 10:53 阿富汗 -
586:100,德国联邦议院压倒性支持向乌提供重武器
2022-04-29 10:30 德意志 -
波兰还在继续采购俄天然气,从德国
2022-04-29 09:39 乌克兰之殇 -
拜登跟国会要330亿美元对乌援助:还可以用没收俄富豪的钱
2022-04-29 09:22 乌克兰之殇 -
美国新增感染86361例、死亡686例
2022-04-29 08:00 美国一梦 -
安理会谴责卡拉奇大学孔子学院恐袭事件
2022-04-29 07:48 -
联合国秘书长到访基辅:安理会完全失败了
2022-04-29 07:39 乌克兰之殇 -
泽连斯基获邀参加G20峰会,外交部回应
2022-04-29 07:26 -
波兰:拟没收俄能源公司设备以恢复供气
2022-04-29 07:25 俄罗斯之声 -
俄红场阅兵举行带军事装备的夜间彩排
2022-04-29 06:57 俄罗斯之声 -
埃尔多安时隔5年再次访问沙特
2022-04-29 06:55 薄荷四国
相关推荐 -
他在以色列监狱中死亡,联合国官员:极度震惊 评论 182俄方通缉泽连斯基等乌军政要员,乌方回应 评论 190“哈马斯得到美方保证”?以官员威胁:不会同意 评论 102国际刑事法院忍无可忍:再威胁试试 评论 234省级督察组现场核实情况,遭故意封路阻挠 评论 136最新闻 Hot
-
国际刑事法院忍无可忍:再威胁试试
-
澳大利亚“设卡”,中国在非洲淘到“白金”
-
“半数以上AI最热门领域,中国研究领先”
-
省级督察组现场核实情况,遭故意封路阻挠
-
美国又出新规:想要补贴,电动汽车上不能有“中国制造”
-
“中俄在台海附近军演,逼着美国改计划”
-
他催拜登采取行动:保住内塔尼亚胡,不然逮捕令会落到咱们身上
-
以代表称:没料到美国精英大学里也有哈马斯
-
“内塔尼亚胡决心竞选连任”
-
香港暴徒“屠龙小队”队长:计划使用炸弹杀害港警,至少30个
-
“美国各地逾2000名抗议者被捕”
-
“欧盟得把成年男性遣返乌克兰,上战场”
-
“这样拆掉中国设备,许多农村就没网了”
-
果然,印度和日本破防了
-
“美军还没撤,俄军就把这里占了”
-
“北约发这种提案,简直疯了”
-