#143 Classic episode – Jeffrey Lewis on the most common misconceptions about nuclear weapons
Feb 19, 2025
auto_awesome
Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear weapons and founder of Arms Control Wonk, debunks common misconceptions about U.S. nuclear policy. He reveals that the principle of 'mutually assured destruction' was misinterpreted and critiques how military plans suggest the U.S. aims to dominate in nuclear conflicts. Lewis also discusses the complexities of decision-making in nuclear strategy and the persistent misunderstandings stemming from rigid communication within the nuclear community, emphasizing the need for international cooperation to mitigate existential threats.
The U.S. nuclear strategy prioritizes 'dominating' in a nuclear war rather than relying solely on mutually assured destruction.
Miscommunication around nuclear launch policies illustrates the complexities in public understanding of the U.S. nuclear strategy.
Expertise in nuclear issues is often gatekept, limiting public access to crucial information necessary for informed discussions.
The concept of mutually assured destruction oversimplifies a complex reality of nuclear deterrence influenced by various political and individual factors.
Negotiating arms control agreements is increasingly vital for global security amid rising geopolitical tensions among nuclear-armed states.
The introduction of dual-capable military systems complicates decision-making by blurring conventional and nuclear capabilities, raising the risk of misinterpretation.
Deep dives
The Complexity of Launch Policies
The discussion highlights the nuanced distinction between the U.S. nuclear launch policies, particularly the terms 'launch on warning' and 'launch under attack.' The U.S. maintains a launch under attack posture but possesses the capability to launch on warning, which leads to confusion and miscommunication about its nuclear strategy. This linguistic nuance plays a critical role in public and political discourse, as terms can cause misunderstanding and a lack of clarity. The gatekeeping around these terms further complicates the dialogue, making it difficult for stakeholders to comprehend the reality of the U.S. nuclear stance.
Nostalgic Returns to Classic Episodes
The podcast features reflection on the decision to release more classic episodes than usual as a means to revisit particularly insightful discussions. This return not only serves as a fond remembrance of previously shared knowledge but also aims to maintain listener engagement during periods of reduced new content creation. The host expresses excitement about upcoming in-person interviews, indicating a shift towards richer visual and interactive experiences. The expansive and appealing discussions of past guests underline the value of diverse perspectives in the ongoing conversations about nuclear policy.
The Limitations of Informal Nuclear Discussions
Informal discussions with knowledgeable figures on nuclear issues reveal both the depth of their expertise and the general hesitance to engage in candid dialogue regarding sensitive subjects. While the podcast features a guest with extensive experience in nuclear weapons and global security, the general public often lacks access to such expertise due to gatekeeping dynamics within the field. The host connects with the audience by soliciting listener questions, emphasizing the importance of addressing concerns surrounding nuclear conflict. This interaction highlights the necessity of cultivating informed discussions that bridge the gap between experts and broader audiences.
Misunderstandings of Mutually Assured Destruction
The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is addressed as a misinterpreted idea, particularly among the effective altruism community. Critics argue that the perception of MAD simplifies a far more complex reality of nuclear deterrence, which includes numerous variables and potential outcomes. The discussion stresses the importance of understanding that nuclear policy is not just a game of probability but a multifaceted landscape influenced by individual decision-makers and international dynamics. This serves to underscore that reliance on a conceptual framework may lead to oversimplified conclusions that could lack justification in real-world scenarios.
The Role of Open Source Intelligence in Nuclear Policy
Open source intelligence plays a critical role in monitoring nuclear capabilities and promoting transparency. By assessing publicly available information on nuclear advancements, researchers and analysts can provide more accurate insights into global security threats, fostering a more informed policy discussion. The effectiveness of this intelligence relies on a balance between collaboration with governmental entities and independent, civil society-driven research efforts. This collaborative approach not only helps to build a clearer picture of the current nuclear landscape, but it also serves to avoid the pitfalls of misinformation that can arise from reliance solely on classified data.
Navigating the Politics of Nuclear Arms Control
The current political landscape challenges the pursuit of nuclear arms control agreements, making negotiations increasingly complex. Politicians and decision-makers often hesitate to engage in dialogues about disarmament, framing these discussions as concessions that could undermine national security. However, establishing effective strategies for nuclear control is crucial to maintaining stability and avoiding escalation in tensions. This necessitates a shift in focus towards long-term cooperative relationships that prioritize the prevention of nuclear conflict over short-term political gains.
International Relations and the Future of Nuclear Policy
The podcast discusses the necessity of robust and strategic international relations to navigate the evolving landscape of nuclear threats. Given the strained dynamics between the U.S., Russia, and China, fostering effective communication and constructing a framework for mutual understanding becomes paramount. Emphasizing shared interests and common threats could mitigate the likelihood of misunderstanding that leads to escalatory scenarios. Strategic diplomacy centered on transparency and cooperative security measures is essential to address the inherent complexities of modern nuclear policy.
The Implications of Dual-Capable Systems
The development of dual-capable systems, which can serve both nuclear and conventional purposes, introduces considerable ambiguity into military strategies. This dual capability complicates decision-making processes, as adversaries may misinterpret intentions when these systems are activated. The incorporation of dual-capable systems into national arsenals fuels fears of nuclear escalation, as their existence blurs the lines between conventional and nuclear capabilities. Thus, addressing the ramifications of these systems becomes essential for developing credible deterrent strategies while limiting the risk of accidental nuclear conflict.
The Necessity of Arms Control in Evolving Geopolitical Contexts
The necessity for robust arms control agreements grows increasingly urgent in the context of ongoing geopolitical tensions among nuclear-armed states. As the world witnesses rapid developments in nuclear capabilities and technologies, negotiating effective arms control treaties can mitigate the risks associated with these advancements. The podcast underscores the importance of addressing these issues with a sense of urgency, as failure to reach such agreements can accelerate arms races and decrease global security stability. Renewed efforts in arms control diplomacy could serve as a valuable mechanism for conflict prevention while fostering dialogue concerning nuclear deterrence.
Rethinking Nuclear Deterrence
The conversation invites a critical reassessment of the traditional frameworks surrounding nuclear deterrence. The historical reliance on outdated dichotomies, such as counterforce and countervalue targeting, must evolve to accommodate contemporary nuclear landscapes. By fostering a deeper understanding of the psychological and strategic factors influencing decision-making, analysts and policymakers can better anticipate the nuances of nuclear interactions. This rethinking allows for more comprehensive strategies that prioritize long-term stability while minimizing the risks associated with nuclear conflict.
The Impact of Ideological Narratives on Nuclear Policy
The podcast highlights how ideological narratives shape perceptions surrounding nuclear policy and engagement with global adversaries. Preconceived notions about the intentions of rival states can lead to miscalculations that compromise security and diplomatic relations. This ideological framing can foster an environment of mistrust, preventing the establishment of meaningful dialogue on nuclear arms control. Acknowledging the complexities of international relations is essential to constructively navigate the challenges posed by nuclear proliferation and deter the escalation of conflicts.
America aims to avoid nuclear war by relying on the principle of 'mutually assured destruction,' right? Wrong. Or at least... not officially.
As today's guest — Jeffrey Lewis, founder of Arms Control Wonk and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies — explains, in its official 'OPLANs' (military operation plans), the US is committed to 'dominating' in a nuclear war with Russia. How would they do that? "That is redacted."
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in December 2022.
We invited Jeffrey to come on the show to lay out what we and our listeners are most likely to be misunderstanding about nuclear weapons, the nuclear posture of major powers, and his field as a whole, and he did not disappoint.
As Jeffrey tells it, 'mutually assured destruction' was a slur used to criticise those who wanted to limit the 1960s arms buildup, and was never accepted as a matter of policy in any US administration. But isn't it still the de facto reality? Yes and no.
Jeffrey is a specialist on the nuts and bolts of bureaucratic and military decision-making in real-life situations. He suspects that at the start of their term presidents get a briefing about the US' plan to prevail in a nuclear war and conclude that "it's freaking madness." They say to themselves that whatever these silly plans may say, they know a nuclear war cannot be won, so they just won't use the weapons.
But Jeffrey thinks that's a big mistake. Yes, in a calm moment presidents can resist pressure from advisors and generals. But that idea of ‘winning’ a nuclear war is in all the plans. Staff have been hired because they believe in those plans. It's what the generals and admirals have all prepared for.
What matters is the 'not calm moment': the 3AM phone call to tell the president that ICBMs might hit the US in eight minutes — the same week Russia invades a neighbour or China invades Taiwan. Is it a false alarm? Should they retaliate before their land-based missile silos are hit? There's only minutes to decide.
Jeffrey points out that in emergencies, presidents have repeatedly found themselves railroaded into actions they didn't want to take because of how information and options were processed and presented to them. In the heat of the moment, it's natural to reach for the plan you've prepared — however mad it might sound.
In this spicy conversation, Jeffrey fields the most burning questions from Rob and the audience, in the process explaining:
Why inter-service rivalry is one of the biggest constraints on US nuclear policy
Two times the US sabotaged nuclear nonproliferation among great powers
How his field uses jargon to exclude outsiders
How the US could prevent the revival of mass nuclear testing by the great powers
Why nuclear deterrence relies on the possibility that something might go wrong
