Armament for Disarmament
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 10 December 2010
by Melor Sturua (link to original)
(Russia) on 10 December 2010
by Melor Sturua (link to original)
Translated from
by Sierra Perez-Sparks.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
In his annual address, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gravely warned Washington that if the United States Senate does not ratify the New START treaty, then it might instigate a new turn in the race for nuclear missiles armament. President Obama supports ratification of the treaty, but he does not possess the necessary Senate votes to do so. Republicans are sabotaging New START. In an attempt to butter them up, Obama promised to set aside $85 billion for the modernization of nuclear weapons. “More!” demand those taking up the style of Republicans.
Any compromise has its reasonable limits, but crossing them leads to capitulation. Nuclear modernization, to which Republicans appeal, is a time bomb that could blow up New START, even if the treaty is ratified. The words “new modernization” in the mouths of its apologists mean the construction of new complexes, which will forge more new nuclear weapons than ever before. A trap threatens President Obama: While trying to secure the ratification of New START, he might dilute the treaty’s essence, to say nothing of its goal — the creation of a nuclear-free world. New nuclear facilities are being proposed for construction in Kansas City, Missouri, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico — the birthplace of the first atom bomb. All old equipment for these activities will be replaced by new equipment, and the technology for creating charge modernized. As a result, 80 nuclear warheads will be produced a year. This is more than necessary for the replacement of those being dismantled, although it is less than the Bush administration’s requirement (125 warheads).
Nuclear experts quite unambiguously characterize the goal of “new modernization.” Hans Kristensen (Federation of American Scientists) says, “It's the start of a new era.” Specialists also think that there is no need to recreate nuclear complexes on such significant scales, if Obama wants to ratify New START.
The formal reason for “new modernization” is that the effectiveness of the nuclear warheads cannot be verified by nuclear tests, which are forbidden under international treaties. (The New York Times compares this manufactured situation with automobiles that remain parked in the garage for a long time. Will it start with one turn of the key?) However this is an unconvincing excuse. The United States spent many billions of dollars on the creation of complex systems that check the reliability of its nuclear arsenals. According to Kristensen, these system tests occur annually. To do this up to seven warheads are disassembled, one for each existing type in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In order to replace them — this is arithmetic for first graders — it is necessary to build 7 new warheads. But “new modernization” suggests much more. Experts in the field of nuclear arms control consider this “increase” superfluous. Christopher Paine, Director of the Nuclear Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “There’s no question they could maintain the [U.S.] stockpile at a very high standard with the existing facilities.”
Speaking before senators, Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Michael Anastasio said, “[If we do not invest in the nuclear facilities,] the costs associated with maintaining the existing facilities will eventually overwhelm the weapons program budgets.” Mr. Anastacio knew to whom he was speaking. It is not just that there are principle opponents to the ratification of New START in the Senate. It’s that Republicans, who are looking to blame Obama in the 2012 presidential elections, are killing all of his major initiatives, regardless if they are beneficial to the country or not; or they demand such concessions which dilute the essence of the initiatives. Just recently we witnessed how Obama had to give up raising taxes on the richest Americans in order to push his tax legislation through the Senate. Then came the ratification of New START. It will be an unheard of abomination if the condition of its ratification in the U.S. Senate becomes a new start — already without the quotes — to the nuclear arms race.
Any compromise has its reasonable limits, but crossing them leads to capitulation. Nuclear modernization, to which Republicans appeal, is a time bomb that could blow up New START, even if the treaty is ratified. The words “new modernization” in the mouths of its apologists mean the construction of new complexes, which will forge more new nuclear weapons than ever before. A trap threatens President Obama: While trying to secure the ratification of New START, he might dilute the treaty’s essence, to say nothing of its goal — the creation of a nuclear-free world. New nuclear facilities are being proposed for construction in Kansas City, Missouri, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico — the birthplace of the first atom bomb. All old equipment for these activities will be replaced by new equipment, and the technology for creating charge modernized. As a result, 80 nuclear warheads will be produced a year. This is more than necessary for the replacement of those being dismantled, although it is less than the Bush administration’s requirement (125 warheads).
Nuclear experts quite unambiguously characterize the goal of “new modernization.” Hans Kristensen (Federation of American Scientists) says, “It's the start of a new era.” Specialists also think that there is no need to recreate nuclear complexes on such significant scales, if Obama wants to ratify New START.
The formal reason for “new modernization” is that the effectiveness of the nuclear warheads cannot be verified by nuclear tests, which are forbidden under international treaties. (The New York Times compares this manufactured situation with automobiles that remain parked in the garage for a long time. Will it start with one turn of the key?) However this is an unconvincing excuse. The United States spent many billions of dollars on the creation of complex systems that check the reliability of its nuclear arsenals. According to Kristensen, these system tests occur annually. To do this up to seven warheads are disassembled, one for each existing type in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In order to replace them — this is arithmetic for first graders — it is necessary to build 7 new warheads. But “new modernization” suggests much more. Experts in the field of nuclear arms control consider this “increase” superfluous. Christopher Paine, Director of the Nuclear Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “There’s no question they could maintain the [U.S.] stockpile at a very high standard with the existing facilities.”
Speaking before senators, Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Michael Anastasio said, “[If we do not invest in the nuclear facilities,] the costs associated with maintaining the existing facilities will eventually overwhelm the weapons program budgets.” Mr. Anastacio knew to whom he was speaking. It is not just that there are principle opponents to the ratification of New START in the Senate. It’s that Republicans, who are looking to blame Obama in the 2012 presidential elections, are killing all of his major initiatives, regardless if they are beneficial to the country or not; or they demand such concessions which dilute the essence of the initiatives. Just recently we witnessed how Obama had to give up raising taxes on the richest Americans in order to push his tax legislation through the Senate. Then came the ratification of New START. It will be an unheard of abomination if the condition of its ratification in the U.S. Senate becomes a new start — already without the quotes — to the nuclear arms race.
Previous article![]( "Tension between West and Middle Easterners Is Political")