With a U.S. nuclear posture review under way and countries like India, Russia and China updating their arsenals, it is crucial that we consider carefully the action of our government in regards to our nuclear policy, and how these actions will be perceived by the world.

One would hope that we learned our lesson from the Cold War and its juvenile nuclear arms race that was highly reminiscent of two little boys fighting over whose Tonka truck is bigger.

Competition breeds more competition, and fighting fire with fire always leads to more fire. While growing up, I was reminded by my parents not to “fan the flames” when in a disagreement with my little sister.

While we haven’t seemed to grasp this concept of “no flame fanning” as a nation (see Iraq and Afghanistan and the “Global War on Terror”) I have faith that we can at least adopt this mantra when it comes to nuclear weapons. Luckily, the Federation of American Scientists agrees.

In a briefing on the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) on August 27th, Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Information Project Director Hans Kristensen recalled that the NPR will have huge policy implications for the next 30-40 years, and called on the government to consider “what we are telling the world” with our actions regarding nuclear weapons. (Watch the briefing on CSPAN.)

Both Kristensen and FAS President Ivan Oelrich recommended that the U.S. end the deployment of nuclear -armed submarines. They also called for de-alerting nuclear weapons and no Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) or new nuclear weapons.

Oelrich also advocated for a fundamental shift in thinking about nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament- a shift from numbers to purpose- a shift in thinking which no-longer assumes nuclear weapons are inherently necessary or useful.

Rather, Oelrich said that it is important for the U.S. to ask,

“What are we going to use these things for?”

“What are the political objectives that we hope to accomplish with our nuclear weapons?”

This approach could also work for engaging Russia. Oelrich suggests approaching the Russians with a “vision for a strategic relationship” and working with them on “…how would we have to arrange our weapons to get to that point,”

Oelrich also said that a “revolutionary” posture shift would mean ending U.S. counter-force capabilities, and instead building up political “trust” with the government of Russia and other nuclear states.

However, he noted that a main challenge to this revolutionary posture shift is a “psychological barrier” of feeling safer when “in control” of nuclear weapons, rather than only the “trust” of a diplomatic agreement.

Considering the feasibility of a nuclear weapons free world, Oelrich said, “We have this one mountain in front of us, which is giving up the first-strike counter-force capabilities. “

Another mountain in the way of serious nuclear reform is the entrenchment of the nuclear weapons industry across the U.S.

The “I like the ICBMs because they bring money into my state” “is inevitably going to rise, “ said Oelrich.