By Jason Sibert
The United States and the People’s Republic of China are butting heads in the military, diplomatic, and economic spheres.
Related to the military sphere are skyrocketing nuclear weapons budgets in both countries. Starting in the administration of President Barack Obama, our country has been engaging in a nuclear modernization plan to upgrade our arsenal. The PRC has traditionally kept a small arsenal, but it is expanding to counter the power of the United States. The Defense Department recently stated that the Chinese nuclear arsenal could quadruple by 2030.
Traditionally, the country wanted enough of a nuclear arsenal to retaliate against an adversary, as its arsenal wasn’t designed for offensive purposes. The PRC also fears the United States’ nuclear arsenal, especially after we withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia in 2002, a treaty that limited the number of anti-ballistic missiles that both the U.S. and Russia could possess. Anti-ballistic missiles are designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. Defense officials in the PRC are currently worried about their country’s ability to retaliate if the U.S. should attack. These officials have been watching our country’s ambitions such as the 2019 Ballistic Missile Defense Review that recommends that our country explore boost-phase and space-based missile defenses. An equipped nuclear arsenal would help China improve its readiness when it comes to fighting a nuclear war.
But the whole scenario is scarier than many in the public realize. As the conventional military power balance moves in China’s favor in Asia, will the U.S. be tempted to use its nuclear arsenal when it comes to deterring China from invading Taiwan? In turn, a larger nuclear arsenal would help China to balance the U.S. in the conflict over Taiwan.
For U.S. defense planners, the expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal is just a sign of the worsening relations between our country and the Asian giant. However, the planners haven’t stated weather China will adapt a first-use policy, as stated by writers Fiona Cunningham and M. Taylor Fravel in their story “China’s Nuclear Arsenal is Growing: What Does that Mean for U.S./China Relations?” Obviously, the PRC no longer feels a handful of warheads is enough to take on the U.S. However, one needs to put things in a different perspective, even if the PRC quadruples its warhead capacity by 2030, it would still be on-third of the size of our arsenal, or 3,750 warheads.
Managing the PRC’s growing nuclear arsenal is a major challenge for our country, the same with Russia. Cunningham and Fravel said our nuclear modernization plan and strategic arms control will depend on weather we manage Russia and China together or one at a time. How U.S. allies view our extended nuclear deterrence is another issue.
Cunningham and Fravel feel the U.S. and PRC should try arms control. The appealing thing about arms control is that it promotes a cheap method of securing a country (as opposed to arms races), and it promotes peace. Writer Michael Lind said in his story “The Case for Economic Arms Control” that the purpose of arms control is not to banish national militaries but to make geopolitical contests less deadly for all nation-states involved. He looks to the past, the Cold War, for some ideas about arms control. Lind said the U.S. was able to achieve key arms control deals with the Soviet Union in the 1970’s because it had achieved superiority over the Soviet Union, negotiating from a position of strength.
As stated, the U.S. already spends a great deal more on its military than China. We should be well positioned to engage in a series of arms control deals to simmer the tensions between our country and the PRC. In our relations with the PRC, will we use logic or will we fall to the emotion of fear and the profits some stand to make with more nuclear arms?
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy Project.