Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty: A First Step Toward Abolition
The United States and Russia have concluded a new nuclear arms reduction treaty to decrease the number of strategic nuclear weapons each country holds. Presidents Obama and Medvedev will sign the new treaty in Prague on Apr. 8.
The two countries’ nuclear strategies influence arms reduction throughout the world. The fact that these two nuclear powers — which possess 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons between them — were able to take a step toward reducing their nuclear arsenals is quite significant.
For the sake of accelerating the rate of nuclear arms reduction and abolition, we would like to see both countries’ legislatures swiftly ratify the treaty and bring it into effect.
The new treaty succeeds START 1, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that both countries concluded in 1991. In essence, it limits the nuclear warheads each country can deploy to 1550 each and cuts delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles and strategic bombers (including those that have not been deployed), to 800.
If the treaty should take effect, the number of nuclear warheads would drop to its lowest level since both countries agreed to begin arms reduction talks. Total strategic nuclear weapons will fall by a quarter of their levels under START 1, and the number of deployed weapons will fall by more than a third of their current levels.
The terms of the reduction were reached while preserving the nuclear deterrence capability of both countries as well as the military balance between them. In other words, this is not a renunciation of the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence.” However, it is the first comprehensive agreement — specifying everything from limits on delivery systems to verification measures — in 20 years. It is praiseworthy as an effective nuclear arms reduction treaty.
With this treaty, global cooperation toward nuclear arms reduction, which had stagnated under the Bush administration, will start again. It is to be hoped that this current leads the way from nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation towards a discussion of the abolition of such weapons.
Behind the U.S.–Russia agreement, we can see Obama’s strategy: by taking responsibility in their roles as leaders in nuclear arms reduction, both countries fight nuclear terrorism and strengthen the regime of nuclear non-proliferation.
At the same time, 20 years after the end of the Cold War and with strategic nuclear programs straining finances, domestic conditions in both countries conspired to encourage compromises and give the treaty a boost towards a final agreement.
As for the treaty’s implementation, explanations dealing with the United States’ missile defense system and mutual verification measures remain vague.
Still, the fact that the United States and Russia achieved nuclear arms reduction in good faith will urge nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom, China and France — as well as India and Pakistan — to reduce their own stockpiles and should increase international pressure on countries who are eyeing the bomb, like Iran and North Korea.
The treaty’s prompt entry into effect is thus indispensable. It will further the “world without nuclear weapons” that President Obama has championed. However, even when the treaty takes effect, it will be no more than a beginning down the road toward abolishing nuclear weapons.
In order to realize the complete abolition that the world desires, it will be necessary to follow up with a new global framework to lay out a path toward prohibiting the use, and then the possession, of nuclear weapons.
We hope that next month’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York will bear fruit in the same direction.
The two countries’ nuclear strategies influence arms reduction throughout the world. The fact that these two nuclear powers — which possess 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons between them — were able to take a step toward reducing their nuclear arsenals is quite significant.
For the sake of accelerating the rate of nuclear arms reduction and abolition, we would like to see both countries’ legislatures swiftly ratify the treaty and bring it into effect.
The new treaty succeeds START 1, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that both countries concluded in 1991. In essence, it limits the nuclear warheads each country can deploy to 1550 each and cuts delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles and strategic bombers (including those that have not been deployed), to 800.
If the treaty should take effect, the number of nuclear warheads would drop to its lowest level since both countries agreed to begin arms reduction talks. Total strategic nuclear weapons will fall by a quarter of their levels under START 1, and the number of deployed weapons will fall by more than a third of their current levels.
The terms of the reduction were reached while preserving the nuclear deterrence capability of both countries as well as the military balance between them. In other words, this is not a renunciation of the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence.” However, it is the first comprehensive agreement — specifying everything from limits on delivery systems to verification measures — in 20 years. It is praiseworthy as an effective nuclear arms reduction treaty.
With this treaty, global cooperation toward nuclear arms reduction, which had stagnated under the Bush administration, will start again. It is to be hoped that this current leads the way from nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation towards a discussion of the abolition of such weapons.
Behind the U.S.–Russia agreement, we can see Obama’s strategy: by taking responsibility in their roles as leaders in nuclear arms reduction, both countries fight nuclear terrorism and strengthen the regime of nuclear non-proliferation.
At the same time, 20 years after the end of the Cold War and with strategic nuclear programs straining finances, domestic conditions in both countries conspired to encourage compromises and give the treaty a boost towards a final agreement.
As for the treaty’s implementation, explanations dealing with the United States’ missile defense system and mutual verification measures remain vague.
Still, the fact that the United States and Russia achieved nuclear arms reduction in good faith will urge nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom, China and France — as well as India and Pakistan — to reduce their own stockpiles and should increase international pressure on countries who are eyeing the bomb, like Iran and North Korea.
The treaty’s prompt entry into effect is thus indispensable. It will further the “world without nuclear weapons” that President Obama has championed. However, even when the treaty takes effect, it will be no more than a beginning down the road toward abolishing nuclear weapons.
In order to realize the complete abolition that the world desires, it will be necessary to follow up with a new global framework to lay out a path toward prohibiting the use, and then the possession, of nuclear weapons.
We hope that next month’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York will bear fruit in the same direction.