Barack Obama’s “Nuclear Spring”
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 13 April 2010
by Andrey Shitov (link to original)
(Russia) on 13 April 2010
by Andrey Shitov (link to original)
Translated from
by Olga Kerzhner.
Edited by Katy Burtner.
Keeping his pre-election vow to tackle the key problems of our existence, President Obama has devoted the months of April and May to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Apparently, he is eager to prove that he deserved last year's Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in advance for his good intentions. But he will not receive political bonus points for his efforts domestically. The local press agrees that Americans, who are busy making ends meet, aren't really paying attention to his efforts.
The New START agreement with Russia is the centerpiece of Obama's efforts. It's important to the White House not only in practical terms, but also symbolically. It's a confirmation that the president's policy in the area he has made a priority is bearing fruit. The New START encompasses America's new nuclear doctrine. It can also be flaunted at the summit in Washington D.C., and at a future date during the Senate's planned ratification of the treaty. Finally, many Americans hope that an arms agreement with Moscow will help Washington push the issue of tighter sanctions against Iran.
America's new nuclear strategy has been postponed several times in anticipation of the New START. When the doctrine designed for the next five to ten years was finally released, the results of its review were less radical than some had hoped (and others feared). For the first time, its emphasis has officially shifted to counter nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. However, the U.S. retained all components of its nuclear "triad," whose fundamental (but not sole) purpose of existence is deterring a potential aggressor.
When it comes to Russia, the U.S. still considers it appropriate for the two countries to have an "approximate parity" of deployed strategic weapons. As explained by a senior Pentagon spokesman, James Miller, this will at least help avoid the "misperceptions" of any party regarding the relative strength or weakness of their position.
Parity is also the unshakable foundation of the new treaty on strategic offensive arms. In accordance with the treaty, the total number of Russian and American deployed warheads should be reduced by one-third (to 1,550 each) within the next seven years. The limit for strategic delivery systems should be cut in half.
In America, many criticize this agreement. The "hawks" believe that Moscow would have reduced its arsenal for technical and financial reasons and, therefore, there was no need to make this agreement. The "doves" complain that for a number of reasons (from arms storage to the order of inventory of warheads on strategic bombers) the real effect of the New START treaty will be minimal.
Of course, the opinion of such "ideological" critics cannot be swayed. However, Harvard's Graham Allison (one of America's leading nuclear weapons experts, who has worked in high positions in the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) gave skeptics a sensible answer. He reminded them that "the treaty returns to the mainstream of superpower arms control," which had been forgotten under George W. Bush. This is valuable in and of itself, since it strengthens predictability and partially "dampens the prudent paranoia of national security planners who must consider worst-case 'what-ifs.'"
He also pointed out to those people who think that 1,550 warheads is too many that at the height of the Cold War the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the USSR had more than 68,000 units of arms. Then, and now, the lion's share of these weapons belonged to America and Russia. Neither of the countries can handle the nuclear problems by itself, which, incidentally, was confirmed in Prague, when the countries' leaders signed the treaty. Lastly, Allison believes that the partnership between the U.S. and Russia can influence "Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and others."
Of course, the opinions of the New START's supporters and critics are important with respect to its ratification. American opposition's primary demands are well known: a sufficiently strict verification regime and the absence of any restrictions on missile defense work. The White House confirms that the treaty fully meets these criteria. Another Republican condition has also been pre-emptively met. The administration has already proposed to increase the funding of the leading military nuclear laboratories by $5 billion over five years. Finally, the highest U.S. military commanders also support the treaty. The New START and the new nuclear doctrine have, supposedly, taken into account their views.
Apparently, this is why the White House believes that it will reach the required majority of 67 votes in the U.S. Senate. But, to its credit, it continues actively working. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have personally met with and talked to the leaders of relevant committees. On the next day after returning from Prague, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to give a "progress report" not just anywhere, but at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. The center's creator and top-ranking Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, personally introduced the honored guest to the students.
The White House conducted the first briefings for key congressional staff members directly from the Czech capital via teleconference. And within the next few days, formal hearings on the subject of nuclear weapons will begin on Capitol Hill. Although they have not been formally dedicated to the New START, they are still a prologue to the future ratification — a continuation of the same "nuclear spring."
Within the next four years, Obama would like to ensure the safety and security of nuclear materials worldwide, improve the global nonproliferation regime and strengthen the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He wants to secure the world community's support for these plans at the summit. Judging by the final draft of the communique that circulated in Washington in anticipation of the forum, he will receive this support. The general work plan with a detailed program of action at the international and national levels has also been agreed upon. Incidentally, as part of this plan, Russia and the U.S. should finally begin to put into action their long-standing agreement to dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
According to the draft communique, another nuclear safety summit will be held in 2012. And during his visit to Moscow in July of 2009, Obama said that there is a high probability that a follow-up summit on this issue may be held in Russia.
The New START agreement with Russia is the centerpiece of Obama's efforts. It's important to the White House not only in practical terms, but also symbolically. It's a confirmation that the president's policy in the area he has made a priority is bearing fruit. The New START encompasses America's new nuclear doctrine. It can also be flaunted at the summit in Washington D.C., and at a future date during the Senate's planned ratification of the treaty. Finally, many Americans hope that an arms agreement with Moscow will help Washington push the issue of tighter sanctions against Iran.
America's new nuclear strategy has been postponed several times in anticipation of the New START. When the doctrine designed for the next five to ten years was finally released, the results of its review were less radical than some had hoped (and others feared). For the first time, its emphasis has officially shifted to counter nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. However, the U.S. retained all components of its nuclear "triad," whose fundamental (but not sole) purpose of existence is deterring a potential aggressor.
When it comes to Russia, the U.S. still considers it appropriate for the two countries to have an "approximate parity" of deployed strategic weapons. As explained by a senior Pentagon spokesman, James Miller, this will at least help avoid the "misperceptions" of any party regarding the relative strength or weakness of their position.
Parity is also the unshakable foundation of the new treaty on strategic offensive arms. In accordance with the treaty, the total number of Russian and American deployed warheads should be reduced by one-third (to 1,550 each) within the next seven years. The limit for strategic delivery systems should be cut in half.
In America, many criticize this agreement. The "hawks" believe that Moscow would have reduced its arsenal for technical and financial reasons and, therefore, there was no need to make this agreement. The "doves" complain that for a number of reasons (from arms storage to the order of inventory of warheads on strategic bombers) the real effect of the New START treaty will be minimal.
Of course, the opinion of such "ideological" critics cannot be swayed. However, Harvard's Graham Allison (one of America's leading nuclear weapons experts, who has worked in high positions in the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) gave skeptics a sensible answer. He reminded them that "the treaty returns to the mainstream of superpower arms control," which had been forgotten under George W. Bush. This is valuable in and of itself, since it strengthens predictability and partially "dampens the prudent paranoia of national security planners who must consider worst-case 'what-ifs.'"
He also pointed out to those people who think that 1,550 warheads is too many that at the height of the Cold War the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the USSR had more than 68,000 units of arms. Then, and now, the lion's share of these weapons belonged to America and Russia. Neither of the countries can handle the nuclear problems by itself, which, incidentally, was confirmed in Prague, when the countries' leaders signed the treaty. Lastly, Allison believes that the partnership between the U.S. and Russia can influence "Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and others."
Of course, the opinions of the New START's supporters and critics are important with respect to its ratification. American opposition's primary demands are well known: a sufficiently strict verification regime and the absence of any restrictions on missile defense work. The White House confirms that the treaty fully meets these criteria. Another Republican condition has also been pre-emptively met. The administration has already proposed to increase the funding of the leading military nuclear laboratories by $5 billion over five years. Finally, the highest U.S. military commanders also support the treaty. The New START and the new nuclear doctrine have, supposedly, taken into account their views.
Apparently, this is why the White House believes that it will reach the required majority of 67 votes in the U.S. Senate. But, to its credit, it continues actively working. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have personally met with and talked to the leaders of relevant committees. On the next day after returning from Prague, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to give a "progress report" not just anywhere, but at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. The center's creator and top-ranking Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, personally introduced the honored guest to the students.
The White House conducted the first briefings for key congressional staff members directly from the Czech capital via teleconference. And within the next few days, formal hearings on the subject of nuclear weapons will begin on Capitol Hill. Although they have not been formally dedicated to the New START, they are still a prologue to the future ratification — a continuation of the same "nuclear spring."
Within the next four years, Obama would like to ensure the safety and security of nuclear materials worldwide, improve the global nonproliferation regime and strengthen the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He wants to secure the world community's support for these plans at the summit. Judging by the final draft of the communique that circulated in Washington in anticipation of the forum, he will receive this support. The general work plan with a detailed program of action at the international and national levels has also been agreed upon. Incidentally, as part of this plan, Russia and the U.S. should finally begin to put into action their long-standing agreement to dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
According to the draft communique, another nuclear safety summit will be held in 2012. And during his visit to Moscow in July of 2009, Obama said that there is a high probability that a follow-up summit on this issue may be held in Russia.