Nuclear deterrence has regularly emerged as a topic of discussion during the 2016 presidential campaign, primarily as a means of illustrating the merits of the candidates’ capacity for leadership.
Democrat Hillary Clinton recently highlighted a joint statement by 10 former Air Force nuclear launch officers that said Trump is “easily baited” and unfit to hold authority over the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The candidate and her surrogates have used a similar line of attack on Trump’s temperament throughout the summer and fall.
In response, Trump has called Clinton weak (among other pejoratives) and has emphasized endorsements from the military and national security community. In September a group of nearly 90 retired military officials wrote a letter in support of his campaign, arguing for a “long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy” by a candidate who has vowed to rebuild the military.
Most recently, Clinton released an advertisement featuring the now-adult “Daisy Girl,” who first appeared in a 1964 campaign ad by President Lyndon B. Johnson ending with a nuclear explosion, in an attack on comments Trump has made suggesting support for nuclear proliferation and what has been perceived as a freewheeling attitude about the use of military force.
The topic will not be theoretical for whomever is president-elect after Nov. 8. Unsurprisingly, Trump and Clinton have diverged when it comes to addressing the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, their views of the United States’ role in the world, the extent to which investments must be made in modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the nation’s relations with other nuclear powers.
Here is what we know about where they stand now.
On Nuclear Modernization
The Republican Party platform released in July called for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal and shifting focus away from disarmament and arms control initiatives, while addressing common concerns such as combating nuclear proliferation in collaboration with other countries, namely Russia. Trump in April gave a foreign policy speech in which he repeated this support for modernization of the nuclear deterrent, which he said “has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.”
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party platform highlighted arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear stockpile reductions as key in the nation’s security strategy, pledging to “work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years.”
Neither candidate has laid out a detailed vision for the size and scope of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Neither campaign responded to an NS&D Monitor questionnaire distributed early in the race on this topic.
Clinton indicated earlier this year she would reconsider the $1 trillion, decades-long U.S. program to update all three legs of the nuclear triad if elected. “Do we have to do any of it? If we have to do some of it, how much do we have to do? That’s going to be a tough question,” she was recorded saying February in leaked audio from a private campaign event.
Clinton in the recording also said she “certainly would be inclined” to cancel the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile program. The LRSO, intended to replace the aging air-launched cruise missile, has faced some opposition in Congress for being too costly and increasing the risk of miscalculation by U.S. adversaries because of its ability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads; the Air Force continues to defend the program.
“Some modernization is likely to continue no matter who is elected president – particularly for nuclear-armed submarines,” Miles Pomper, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told NS&D Monitor in April. “The real questions are likely to center around whether to go forward with [LRSO] and possibly cuts to ICBMs.”
Other analysts agree that the nuclear modernization program will almost certainly continue under either administration, although future spending may change over numerous presidential terms, as modernization is set to take about 30 years.
On Deterrence and Nonproliferation
Trump suggested in March he might support U.S. allies’ development of their own nuclear weapons, rather than covering the likes of Japan and South Korea under the costly U.S. military umbrella. The White House, as well as Japanese and South Korean officials, dismissed the idea; Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said “it would be catastrophic were the United States to shift its position and indicate that we support somehow the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries.”
During their first presidential debate in September, the candidates agreed that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat facing the world today, but Clinton criticized Trump’s comments, calling expanding the number of nuclear-armed states a proliferation threat that goes against longstanding U.S. security policy. Academics have argued in both directions – while some schools of thought advocate for extended deterrence, others favor deterrence via nuclear weapons possession by developed, stable nations.
During the debate Trump also mentioned that, with regard to nuclear weapon use, “I can’t take anything off the table,” a comment the arms control community has criticized as a careless willingness to launch nuclear weapons.
In his April speech Trump said a major weakness in current U.S. foreign policy involves allies that do not pay their fair share for their own defense, which he would address by calling a summit for NATO members to discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments. He has also repeatedly stressed a noninterventionist approach to global engagement, focused on creating stability worldwide rather than engaging in nation-building.
NATO countries host roughly 180 of the United States’ B61 nuclear gravity bombs, part of the U.S. security commitment to the alliance. Analysts have said Washington is unlikely to withdraw from NATO under a Trump administration because of the logistical challenges in carrying out military operations worldwide without the use of U.S. military infrastructure in Europe.
On Russia
The U.S. intelligence community concluded last month that the Russian government was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer files and subsequent leaks of hacked information online. The Clinton camp has repeatedly alleged that the country is trying to meddle in the outcome of the election because Russian officials favor a Trump victory – involvement that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself has denied and denounced.
Despite Clinton’s role as then-secretary of state in promoting the Obama administration’s “reset” in relations with Russia starting in 2009, the relationship between the two countries has worsened, culminating in Moscow’s withdrawal from nuclear nonproliferation initiatives such as the final Nuclear Security Summit, and bilateral deals such as the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. Analysts say the Russians might view a Clinton administration as too hawkish and threatening, particularly in the context of both countries’ competing interventions in the Syrian conflict today.
In the last of three debates last month, the candidates sparred over the U.S.-Russian relationship, with Clinton accusing Trump of being a potential puppet for Putin, and Trump arguing that the Russian leader has “outsmarted” Clinton and the Obama administration on international security issues – specifically on Russia’s nuclear modernization program and creation of warheads, compared to U.S. warhead reductions.
During his April speech Trump expressed a desire “to live peacefully and in friendship” with Russia. “I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only, is possible, absolutely possible,” Trump said. “Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility, must end, and ideally will end soon.”
Last week Putin said he will be willing to work with the new U.S. president, regardless of which candidate wins the election.
