What the Debate on Nuclear Weaponry Should Really Focus on

January 24, 2014

Hunter Hustus, a Doctor of Law and Policy student and technical advisor, Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, for the U.S. Air Force, recently co-authored an article in The National Interest magazine arguing for the framework of the debate the U.S. should be having in regards to nuclear weaponry. Hustus contends that the current debate should not focus on the “less is better” approach, but rather “which nuclear capabilities remain critical to our security.” The National Interest is a quarterly journal of international affairs and diplomacy that aims to “provide a space for vigorous debate and exchange not only among Americans but between U.S. and overseas interlocutors.”

Hunter Hustus

Hustus and his co-author, Adam Lowther, state:

“For some strange reason, today’s debate over the utility of nuclear weapons is focused on the number of strategically deployed weapons. Discussions surrounding how many is too many and how many is enough are often based on gross assumptions that are made to fit the agenda of the individuals speculating about necessary numbers.”

Hustus’ department at the U.S. Air Force provides advocacy for and ensures the stewardship and effectiveness of nuclear weapon systems.  In his role, Hustus advises on force structure, treaty obligations, international and domestic political considerations, and extending nuclear guarantees to allies.

Further, Hustus and his co-author argue:

“Rather than taking a “less is better” approach, as the abolitionist movement does, numbers should flow from strategy. The debate should center on which nuclear capabilities remain critical to our security. It is high time the United States abandon the search for “Goldilocks” solutions.”

To read more visit: When Fewer Nukes Mean More Danger