编者按：清华大学战略与安全中心研究员周波在South China Morning Post(《南华早报》)上发文回应New York
Times（《纽约时报》）有关拜登批准美国核部署机密文件的报道。周波表示，足够的核威慑力量和绝对的核反击能力，是中国倡导“不首先使用核武器“的前提条件。
此前，周波在美国Foreign Policy(《外交政策》)杂志发文，论述五个正式核大国都应该承诺“不首先使用核武器”。
【文/ 观察者网专栏作者 周波，翻译/ 李泽西 核译/ 韩桦】
这可真新鲜：据《纽约时报》报道，美国总统拜登于今年3月批准了一份名为《核部署指南》（Nuclear Employment Guidance）的机密文件。知情人士称，文件中阐述的战略强调，美军可能需要为俄罗斯、中国和朝鲜的“协作核对抗”做好准备。
我的首要问题是：都没有中俄朝联盟，哪来的核联盟？中俄关系虽密切，但北京并未在俄乌冲突期间向其提供任何直接军事援助，这表明中俄关系并非联盟性质。
与此同时，尽管北京与平壤之间数十年前签订了条约（编者注：中朝友好合作互助条约），要求在战时相互提供军事援助，但如今，中国与朝鲜的军事互动可能比中国与大多数非洲国家的军事互动还要少。那么，这三个国家如何协调所谓针对美国的核战略或核行动呢？
相较俄罗斯，美国在核武器上没有明显优势，未来也不会有，因为俄罗斯拥有更多的核弹头。苏联解体后，俄罗斯的常规力量急剧下降。正因为如此，俄罗斯现在比以往任何时候都更加依赖核武器。
这就解释了为什么俄罗斯在乌克兰战争期间数次发出使用核武器的隐晦威胁，并将在未来几十年继续实施“核模糊”策略。
“和平卫士”导弹弹头。Atomic Archive
此外，如果世界上所有核大国都提高核力量的战备状态，就会增加像冷战时期“虚警”事件的可能性。在早期的远程雷达时代，即使是升起的月亮也可能被误认为是导弹袭击。鉴此，随着更多核武器国家进入高度戒备状态，很可能会出现更多“虚警”或重大事故。
拜登政府的核战略令人遗憾，尤其是因为他在自己政治生涯的大部分时间都在倡导核不扩散。自二战以来，我们已经有大约80年没有发生过全球大国之间的重大战争。
如果这算是一种安慰，那么在冷战结束后约30年，我们会再次陷入冷战的可能性，又令人不安。我只能祭出牛顿的这句话：“我能计算星辰的运行，却无法计算人类的疯狂"。
（以下为英文全文）
This really is an eye-opener. According to The New York Times, US
President Joe Biden approved a classified document in March called the
“Nuclear Employment Guidance”. Sources familiar with the situation say
that the strategy laid out in the document emphasises the need for US
forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with
Russia, China and North Korea.
My first question is this: where is a China-Russia-North Korea
alliance, let alone nuclear alliance? China-Russia relations are close,
but Beijing not having provided any direct military assistance to Moscow
in its invasion of Ukraine suggests their relationship is not an
alliance.
Meanwhile, in spite of a decades-old treaty between Beijing and
Pyongyang that calls for mutual military assistance in time of war,
China’s military interactions nowadays with North Korea are perhaps
fewer than its interactions with most African countries. So how could
the three countries coordinate these nuclear strategies or operations
against the United States?
The US has no clear advantage in terms of nuclear weapons over Russia,
which has more warheads, and it won’t in the future. Precisely because
its conventional forces have drastically declined since the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, Russia now relies more than ever on nuclear
weapons.
This explains why Moscow has made several thinly veiled threats of
using nuclear weapons during its war in Ukraine and will continue to
play with nuclear ambiguity in the decades to come.
China’s nuclear capabilities, including the number of nuclear warheads,
are considered state secrets. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone in
China will publicly confirm the accuracy of the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute’s estimates. The think tank released a report
in June indicating China’s nuclear arsenal had increased from 410
warheads in January 2023 to 500 this January and that for the first time
China could be deploying a small number of warheads on missiles during
peacetime.
In a 2019 defence white paper, China said it would “keep its nuclear
capabilities at the minimum level required for national security”.
Evidently this “minimum level” cannot be quantified because national
security needs vary in different times and environments.
Even if China’s nuclear arsenal has grown to 500 warheads and could
grow as large as 1,500 by 2035, according to Pentagon estimates, Beijing
can still argue that it is still much smaller than Russia’s roughly
6,000 warheads and the 5,400 of the US. At the height of the Cold War,
the Soviet Union had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads while the US had
more than 23,000 – enough to destroy the whole planet. Why would China
choose to become involved in such madness?
In my understanding, “minimum level” refers to a threshold that no
other nuclear power would dare to cross with a pre-emptive nuclear
strike on China, even if China maintains a policy of “no first use” of
nuclear weapons. Precisely because of this policy, China has to build
adequate strength for deterrence. It requires China to have sufficient
nuclear warheads to resist an enemy’s first strike and ensure China has
second-strike capability.
With such nuclear capabilities, China’s military could have a better
chance of emerging victorious over the US in the event of a conventional
war, such as one in the Taiwan Strait. Given that the gap between the
conventional military forces of China and the US is already closing,
China having a large enough nuclear arsenal would force the US to give
up any ideas of using nuclear weapons first.
China call for a “no first use” policy might look to some people like
wishful thinking at a time when nuclear weapons seem to be growing in
importance amid the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but it isn’t.
Nuclear weapons are not an omnipotent force, and having them is no
guarantee of success in a conflict. If China, the US, Russia, Britain
and France can all agree that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore
should never be fought, then why can’t they commit to their own “no
first use” policy?
Much has been written about whether the world has entered a new cold
war. If the US really is poised to resume conducting nuclear tests, as
some reports suggest, this would be tantamount to an official
announcement of a new cold war.
The sight of renewed US nuclear testing would almost certainly usher in
tests by other nuclear powers, spelling doom for nuclear
non-proliferation efforts. This would likely swell the number of states
with nuclear weapons beyond the current nine, resulting in a
considerable reduction in the conventional force superiority of the US
and its allies.
Furthermore, if all the world’s nuclear powers increase the readiness
of their nuclear forces, it could increase the chances of false alarms,
like those seen during the Cold War. During the early days of long-range
radar, even a rising moon could be misinterpreted as a missile attack.
One can easily conclude that with more nuclear weapons states on high
alert, there could be more false alarms or significant incidents.
The Biden administration’s nuclear strategy is a shame, not least
because the president spent so much of his political career advocating
for nuclear non-proliferation. We have had no significant wars between
global powers for some 80 years since World War II.
If this is a solace, it is also disturbing to think we might enter into
another cold war some 30 years after the first. I can only concur with
these words attributed to Isaac Newton: “I can calculate the movement of
the stars, but not the madness of men.”
