Rebeccah Heinrichs’ lecture at Christianity & National Security 2023.

Rebeccah Heinrichs discusses nuclear deterrence, the law of armed conflict, and nuclear deterrence. The following is a transcript of the lecture.

Mark Tooley: Hello, everyone. I’m excited to introduce our next speaker, Rebecca Heinrichs, who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an expert in nuclear deterrence, and a contributing editor at Providence. So please welcome Rebecca Heinrichs. 

Rebecca Heinrichs: Good morning. I’m thrilled to be here with you all. I just got off a plane last night coming back from Omaha, Nebraska, where I spent some time with the U.S. Strategic Command, and so I put together some notes on the flight back. Bear with me as I get through some of the things that I think would be of interest to this group and are directly related to some of the troubles that we see all around us, which are many and diverse. 

First of all, Mark asked me if I could say something encouraging, and so I was thinking, what can I say that would be an encouraging start? Really, you look all around, and there’s lots of division in the country, rising anti-Semitism, not just more of it, but openly, brazenly anti-Semitic, and coming right on the heels of almost unspeakable crimes committed… Gruesome crimes committed by the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas against Jewish people for being Jewish. And it can be very discouraging, to which I would say yes, but it can get worse. That’s meant to be an encouragement to you for the following reasons. 

We are the actors here. It’s all of us. And we all have a very important role to play in addressing the problems we see, right? Immediately before us in the public discussion, in bearing witness to our faith in a world that is very hostile and always has been, and also helping to affect public policy in a way that I think aligns with the principles of justice.  

I was one of the Republican-appointed commissioners on the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Command, mandated by Congress. Six Republicans, six Democrats nominated to serve on this commission by the leadership. They gave us a mandate. They said, “We want you to spend a year plus with one another looking at all the threats facing the United States. Address specifically the U.S.’s strategic past, here, so it’s our nuclear weapons, but it’s not just our nuclear weapons. It’s everything that goes with how we actually conduct strategic deterrence.” 

I can explain what that means in detail, but the point is we haven’t had one of these commissions since 2009. Since 2009, our discussions have been based on a lot from the views expressed in the bipartisan commission in 2009. Consider that. I mean, truly consider that—six Republicans, six Democrats. On the topic of nuclear weapons, which is of all the defense issues in Washington, in particular, it’s one that can bring out passions. People have very strong views about how the United States should have our posture, how we should employ them, talk about them, our declaratory policy especially. 

We’ve seen that especially with Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling around Ukraine, and so you take all of these people, and you put them in the room and say, “We want you to come up with a consensus document… Divided country, very hard topic, threats are numerous… People don’t even understand really what the United States’s role in the world is anymore, or at least have a hard time agreeing on it.” 

They said, “We want you to come up with a consensus document to inform the President, to inform the Department of Defense, and to inform Congress,” and guess what? We did it. We did it, and I encourage you to look at that and, when you read it, continue to reflect and appreciate that this can be done. General Hyten, retired General John Hyten, was one of the commissioners, and one of the things he said during our rollout was… and also, know that we argued. We argued, we debated, we wrestled over specific words. How we’re going to talk about these things, the degree of urgency relative to other things. 

That should be an enormous encouragement to all of us, and I would encourage you to look at that. One of the things in the report is right in the executive summary. It says this remarkable thing: the commission recommends the United States maintain a nuclear strategy consistent with the law of armed conflict based on six fundamental tenets of deterrence, and then it lists what those are. Why did we do that? Why was that so important to include? And that, by the way… is significant. It is remarkable. It’s very good, and I’m thrilled that it’s there and all of the commissioners since the rollout have been very defensive of this particular finding and recommendation being included. 

The law of armed conflict ties to what… We talk about it a lot right now with relation to Israel’s proportionality versus Gaza. Well, the law of armed conflict pulls us back to the principles of proportionality and discrimination. It comes from the just war doctrine… this is what it comes from. It comes from the just war doctrine, and so it’s important then, if we’re going to talk about proportionality, that we understand the purpose of the just war doctrine. That’ll help us feel through what can feel dark and unclear. 

So I’m going to go back to the founding of the country for a little bit. 1863, so this is Civil War time, still considered part of the founding. Sort of the “new birth” of American freedom aligning our country better with the Declaration of Independence as we rid our country of slavery and preserve the Union. In 1863, General Orders No. 100 was drafted by Francis Lieber and signed by President Abraham Lincoln. 

Article 15, Section 1 of the Lieber Code says men who take up arms against another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings responsible to one another and to God. Our country has grappled with this reality that all Christians understand. Sometimes we forget or don’t allow ourselves to meditate on that reality, but we do not cease to become moral beings in war. You do not cease to have Christian responsibility in your various vocations. 

If you are a journalist, you are a Christian journalist. If you’re a veterinarian, you’re a Christian veterinarian. If you’re a police officer, you’re a Christian police officer. You can’t compartmentalize it. You don’t set apart your faith over here in the public sphere, and that is true in matters of defense, foreign policy, statecraft, and warfare. It speaks well of our country that we have grappled with this and sought to align ourselves with those things that are true. 

What’s really remarkable is, as it applies to nuclear deterrence, we also believe that doing it this way actually bolsters the credibility of our deterrence. It doesn’t undermine it. They’re not incompatible. That’s a thing I think is really important. 

Back to how we think about the just war tradition and as it applies to Israel and Gaza right now. There’s a lot of argument, and I thought Mike did a great job of explaining what proportionality is. 

Just to reiterate, proportionality is not tit-for-tat, “You killed this many people, therefore we get to take this many people.” That is not proportionality. I’ve seen people in defense of Israel say, “If you wanted proportionality, it would be committing the same crimes that Hamas committed against innocent Israelis.” That is not proportionality as understood in the just war doctrine. Proportionality is hard and requires a lot of wisdom. It’s not the same thing as discrimination, but the two are related. 

The just war doctrine law of armed conflict prohibits, even if your cause is just… once you meet that, your cause is just. Clearly, Israel’s cause is just, but the principle of discrimination prohibits the just actor from targeting civilians. You cannot target civilians. You must target combatants. What do I mean by that? They cannot intentionally seek out a civilian target and hit it for the purpose of creating suffering. It seems obvious. It’s not what many of our adversaries do. Our adversaries intentionally seek to maximize civilian casualties. It’s what Hamas is doing right now. They’re not really using human shields. They’re forcing human sacrifice. They’re looking to maximize civilian deaths to create a political outcome that they want. It’s evil. You see the difference there. 

But proportionality… Yes, you have to weigh the good. You weigh the military effect that you seek to achieve against the unintended but known negative effects that will happen. You have to seek to avoid them. You want to minimize civilian casualties even as you conduct this military operation. But the good that you seek, both in terms of the military objective and in what you’re trying to defend… both of those things. Is it proportionate? That’s an important nuance that many people fail to grasp. 

What are the Israelis actually trying to defend? This gets back to the whole purpose of the just war doctrine and back to the original Lieber quote I gave. The purpose of the just war doctrine is to equip beings who seek to do good but understand that in this broken world, on this side of Eternity, it’s hard, full of grief, imperfection, limited knowledge, and a lot of things we wish weren’t there. But until we get to Eternity, that isn’t going to be the case. You need to keep that in mind because as people apply the just war doctrine, many are trying to fit standards against something that doesn’t exist in this broken world. This is especially true with the Catholic Bishop’s letter on American nuclear weapons during the Cold War. 

Towards the end of the Cold War, they’re trying to fit a circular peg in a square hole. It doesn’t work. You’re trying to take a tool, a framework, the just war doctrine, that’s designed for the realist perspective. It’s designed for realists to act morally to the best we can in this broken and imperfect world. Does that make sense? If you try to use the just war doctrine and match it up against an idealist vision, it won’t work. 

You’re always going to fall short. An enormous amount of wisdom is required to make these judgments about proportionality. Proportionality is one of the harder things for the just defender, the just warrior, to consider as you carry out operations. For Israel in this case, going back to the purpose of the just war doctrine, and Mike laid it out well and powerfully, about the difference… How a Christian understands the difference between the duties of the private citizen and the duties of a just government. 

The just war doctrine comes from Biblical principles and mandates. It’s not only for Christians, but it’s been embraced by the West. I use the West broadly—those who comply with the laws of armed conflict and international law. But it is something rooted in scripture. 

And this is why the other piece is important to keep in mind. The just government, the just rulers’ Divine mandate, is to protect the innocent and defend them against those who would do them harm. That’s what the sword is for—justice. 

So when you’re looking at Israel and Gaza, you don’t disregard the laws of armed conflict. Yes, they should uphold them. But consider their primary responsibility: to protect Israelis from the harm of rockets flying in from Gaza. That is a duty. For Israel not to destroy Hamas would be to neglect and fail their Divine duty. 

You have to understand that piece first, even as you hope and urge that Israel tries to comply with the laws of armed conflict in this difficult situation where Hamas is trying to make that impossible, or at least appear impossible. But, Israel has a duty to its own people, even as they have a duty to civilians in their enemy’s country. 

I’ll leave time for conversation, but I think it’s important to understand this as you measure Israel’s actions. 

The last point I want to make is important for the private citizen to keep in mind as we engage in these conversations. How many of you are on X, Twitter? Okay, a lot of you are not. I’m impressed. How many of you use TikTok every day? Okay, some of you at least know not to raise your hand. I want to put a caution and encouragement. 

Your conscience is the most important thing you have. We are being inundated with images, information, urgings—it’s information warfare. To sear your conscience, to harm your conscience, to confuse you, to make moral judgments difficult. There can be a temptation. You’ve seen the images from Gaza, and many say don’t turn away. Look to see what Hamas has done. I would push back and say don’t let your eyes linger too long. Your conscience is your most important thing. 

This country is under enormous pressure, with challenges coming externally and domestically. Protect your conscience. Seek to inform it. Understand that you’re looking at people created in the image of God. Don’t become inured to the destruction caused by evil. Also determine in your mind what you think, so that when this comes up in conversation, you have something to say. 

It’s important. The waves of anti-Semitism across the United States right now can only go so far if more of us speak. Jewish fellow citizens, many of whom I’ve talked to, are frightened. It’s unsettling. There’s a temptation to think the depravity of the human heart is something far away in history or another land. But when you see fellow citizens praising and embracing Hamas, it’s unsettling. 

Protect your conscience. Inform it. Be ready to speak. Have sound mind and a soft heart. These are important as we move through this difficult time. I’m encouraged. 

I started off saying I’m encouraged by the Strategic Posture Commission, which came to a consensus on important issues. We spent a lot of time talking about the stakes, what’s at stake. Look at that, because we lay it out for all Americans to understand. As divided as we are at home, this is what’s at stake with a rising China, collaborating with Iran and Russia, using North Korea to supplant the U.S. and the U.S.-led order. 

We try to lay that out in a way that makes sense. We explain what the U.S. is doing and leading in the world. The last thing I’ll say… I’m encouraged by the new Speaker of the House. This is the rise of the Baptists, Mark. 

It’s good to be a Baptist. It’s always good to be a Baptist. But it’s really good to be a Baptist today. I’m excited about that. There is much to be encouraged about. Nothing is set. We are the actors here who can do much good. Things can get worse, but things can also get much better. Things are dynamic. 

A lot of what we’re living through now, this country has lived through before. We’ve fought through all these conversations during the Cold War. We’ve faced the same arguments during the world wars. They’re the same, even down to the words. I thought about reading a speech from the ‘40s, late ‘30s, swapping the modern-day events, and seeing if you could tell the difference. 

They’re the same speeches, same conversations. So as you look through history, know your history. If you agree with someone from history, look at how history has judged them. We have the choice today to decide which role each of us will play in this chapter of American history. 

Take that seriously. Protect, guard, and inform your conscience, and keep it active. I’ll now turn it over to questions. 

Q&A 

Question: Hello. Thank you so much. My name is Devin Burnat, from Liberty University. And I just want to say thank you. Your speech is very encouraging. My family is Israeli, my mom especially is grieving over what’s happening in Israel. And my question is… with a lot of what’s going on in Israel and with Hamas, how can we navigate the propaganda, and the anti-Israeli rhetoric that’s going on, especially with the hospital bombing and Israel turning off water and electricity to the Gaza Strip? 

Answer: It’s a great question. Sometimes, I’ll step away from the news cycle to gather my thoughts and think clearly, because it is difficult. Do you know, the IDF is one of the most lawyered militaries in the world? Israel is constantly under assault. IDF soldiers… Every time we’ve had the United States send some lawyers to see how they’re conducting their operations, there’s basically a lawyer over every shoulder of every IDF soldier when they’re picking targets. This is a country that has taken this moral responsibility under enormous scrutiny. It doesn’t have the world on its side. The entire UN has an enormous anti-Israel bias. It has to sift through the propaganda for its existence. 

One of the things… It’s a very simple and unsatisfying answer, but sometimes it’s just speaking clearly about what we know about Israel and understanding that they deserve the benefit of the doubt while knowing they’re not going to be perfect… It’s not holding up Israel to a defensive, “they could never do anything wrong.” I don’t think that’s the right approach, but I think sometimes just speaking clearly… Did anybody see that international law lawyer on the BBC who corrected the anchor on the laws of war and what Israel was doing? Incredibly powerful. All she did was state what is true. International law does not require you to provide electricity and water to your enemy during war. As much as Israel has sought to evacuate civilians, it’s the only way in a place that’s been so militarized that they can’t avoid civilian casualties, though they would like to. The only way is to evacuate. 

Just stating things that are true, but if you’re debating and arguing with somebody who doesn’t believe Israel is acting in good faith, it can be impossible. Respectfully agree to disagree, and I’d leave that one alone. For those whose minds are open, speaking clearly about what we know to be true is powerful in cutting through the propaganda. 

Question: Hi. Thank you so much. My name is Kanani Kronite. I’m from Colorado Christian University and I just wanted to ask you, with Gen Z, a majority receiving their news through social media, I was curious. What ways do you recommend that we share our voice? Because sometimes it feels like on social media, the impact that we can have is limited, and with regards to anti-Semitism, how do you recommend we go about speaking up against these types of things? 

Answer: Great question. There are other ways. Sometimes responding on social media isn’t a good use of time. I’ve changed my strategy. I used to engage more. Now I rarely argue on it. I might say, “I’ve written this on it, and this provides answers to some of your questions, or I published this,” but for the most part, I don’t. Many accounts on social media are troll accounts from foreign adversaries. That’s a tough thing to say now because people are distrustful of that fact due to the Russia collusion accusations, but it’s true. I can tell by some of the responses to what I say that they’re Russian troll farms. 

Don’t discount your human interaction with people. I don’t mean to encourage debates, but you’ll go back to places where it might surprise you how quickly a room or a conversation can become hostile to Christians, Jews, and other Muslims. Thinking through these situations before they happen can be fruitful, so you’re ready to speak truth gently, to defend those who are in the minority and could use some help. 

Be ready to give voice to that. The value of social media has decreased in my mind. It’s so toxic and hostile that it’s difficult to cut through. I encourage college students to get off Twitter. It’s manipulating you and, again, taking your conscience seriously… If you know it’s an account operated by a foreign power that seeks to harm you, the American way of life, and harm the United States, why give it that power over your information? Even if it seems innocuous—cats chasing lights on the floor. Don’t let them do it. Don’t let them take your mind off better things. 

Question: Hello. I’m Eliza Alton from Utah University. I want to thank you for your outspokenness against anti-Semitism. We need more of that in America today. I have a Jewish background, and in these conversations, we don’t start on the same page. Some people discredit Israeli occupation altogether, some say they have a right to the land as a country, and Palestine statehood… These conversations go south quickly because we don’t start on the same page. My question is how do we effectively and efficiently make that defense for Israel? 

Answer: This is a harder one. What I’d do first—it’s not really a litmus test… but it kind of is—is if you’re talking with somebody, say, “Before we get started, do you condemn Hamas? Do you condemn what just happened?” If they say, “Well, it’s complicated,” say, “I don’t think we’re going to have a fruitful conversation.” Done. It has nothing to do with Palestine or Israel. I’d begin there. If they say, “Well, it’s complicated, because they are the ones in the minority and powerless, and they were forced to do it,” no. We won’t make that moral compromise. We will not. 

That’s what makes it difficult in the American context. A lot of arguments now overlay with the hermeneutical framework of intersectionalism. Some folks from higher education on the far left see the world through who’s powerful and who’s powerless. In any contest of power, they can make defenses for the person they believe is disadvantaged. 

When you do that, you make defenses for all kinds of vandalism and violence in the U.S. You make arguments in defense of the worst, most gruesome atrocities. If you’re talking with someone who begins there, I’d advise you to end the conversation. That person doesn’t recognize the fundamentals of a liberal society. We believe we can sift through hard ideas through conversation. 

If a private citizen can resort to violence for any reason, you’ve already lost the tools for a flourishing democratic society. That person is outside of our ability to have these conversations. 

Question: Thank you. Lou Andrews. I do a lot of public policy writing. It occurs to me that when you talk about defense of the country, you’re not just talking about military capability, but developing an outlook in the population, sharpening the mind, clarifying for people what that means. But today there is so much political division that it’s hard to have that kind of conversation without being accused of advancing Republicans, advancing Democrats. How do we prepare the American mind for what’s coming, without further polarizing the country? People like Roosevelt and Reagan could do it, but I don’t see anyone today. 

Answer: Wonderful question. Not to point back to this bipartisan commission, but I think it’s a glimmer of hope. Part of the argument for what’s going on in the U.S. with the rise of populism… Some things they’re saying I can agree with. It becomes difficult when you begin believing that Democrats or Republicans are the biggest existential threat to the American way of life. 

Once you believe that, you start saying, “I don’t want to hear about the threats from China, Ukraine, or Russia.” We’ve had these conversations before as a country, so this isn’t new. There’s nothing new under the sun. I’ve sought to not inflame passions divisively. Energize people to do good, yes. Energize them to understand the U.S. is still good and worth defending, yes. But inflaming divisiveness, no. 

Remind people that conversations we’re having are real, wrestling over… The debate over whether the Department of Defense can ignore the Hyde Act, and when a senator says no, you have to abide by Congressional intent… This is a conversation about who gets a say on a highly controversial issue. 

We have to look for opportunities not to throw gas on the fire, and remind people that all these domestic issues need time to be sorted out. Understand that this country is still good, still worth defending. There is no drawbridge to throw up in 2023 where we can ignore the world and just focus on domestic problems. 

We need to remind one another of that point. We have a duty as the world’s still-preeminent superpower. It’s not looking good. We’re not trending in the right direction with our adversaries. But that’s what I’d say. 

On a personal note, I went to this commission skeptical we’d reach consensus. We’re on the whole spectrum in terms of the people who served, and I feel chastened and humbled watching my fellow commissioners grapple with hard things, seeing how much all of us deeply love this country and want to do good for her. Giving one another the benefit of the doubt is essential. 

Question: Hi. I’m William Roberts with In Defense of Christians. Rather than looking at domestic discussion, how would you suggest U.S. diplomacy engage with our NATO ally Turkey, who is openly supportive of Hamas? How do you reconcile that? 

Answer: You’re going to ask me about Turkey. It’s really hard. I’m not going to dodge it, but I’ll answer a little differently. When you think about American grand strategy, you have to begin… I believe Christian thought and a realist worldview go together and aren’t incompatible. How can you have a moral foreign policy but one that’s realistic? Part of that is understanding you need a grand strategy to maximize America’s goals. That means dealing with challenging partners and allies who don’t align with the U.S. ideologically. Look at the Arab world—some of our partners, it’s a tough neighborhood. 

I’ve been harder on Turkey in the past, but part of the reason I’ve been persuaded to soften is that the Romanians, the Baltics, and eastern-central Europeans understand how bad it will be if we lose Turkey to the Russian orbit. Really bad. So you have to weigh grand strategy, understanding what we need from Turkey, and where we can use carrots and sticks to influence things, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly. Foolish is making public statements just because it feels good at the time. 

Turkey is challenging. Understanding the Israel-Palestine challenge… It’s a powder keg in the Middle East. You hear one thing from the Saudis about supporting Palestine, but they also want improved relations with Israel. The Saudis intercepted rockets headed toward Israel from the Houthis. Things are complex. 

Turkey will continue to be a serious issue, a hard challenge for the U.S. diplomatically. But if we can keep Turkey closer to Western ideas of the threats and our objectives, it’s worth endeavoring to do. 

Thank you all so much for your attention.