The United States was the nation which first created nuclear weapons, and it thus far remains the only nation to ever actually use them in warfare. From the standpoint of Global Citizens, the United States has a moral duty to take up the cause of complete nuclear disarmament, perhaps the most important issue facing the world today. Right now, the United States Senate has an opportunity to move this cause forward in a very significant way, by ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia.
New START would reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by both nations by roughly 30% each and, perhaps more importantly, implement a strict system of inspection and verification to ensure that both nations are meeting their treaty requirements. It also lays the groundwork for future negotiations which have the possibility of leading to even bigger cuts in nuclear arsenals.
As we have noted before, there is some hesitation among Senate Republicans regarding New START. Unfortunately, this seems to have less to do with any genuine concerns they have and more to do with a desire to embarrass President Obama before the 2010 mid-term elections. When similar treaties were negotiated with Russia by Republican presidents, Senate Republicans fully supported them and they passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The Senate is currently in the midst of its summer break, but we can expect New START to be one of the most important items on the agenda when it returns in a few weeks. The Senate must ratify the treaty without delay, for the following reasons.
First, the United States is technically obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (signed in 1968) to be taking steps towards eventual nuclear disarmament. Ratifying New START would be a loud signal to the world that America takes its responsibility seriously and is genuinely trying to live up to its treaty obligations.
Second, signing New START gives the United States more credibility in its efforts to prevent Iran and North Korea from pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs. It's frankly hypocritical for the United States to assert that certain nations have no right to develop nuclear weapons, when the United States itself is doing nothing whatsoever to reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Similarly, it will hep build goodwill between the Unites States and Russia, thus easing the way for future nuclear reduction negotiations in the future.
Third, the few hundred deployed warheads the United States will be giving up under the terms of the treaty are essentially useless anyway, since their loss will not meaningfully diminish America's nuclear deterrent (the only remotely rational reason for having nuclear weapons in the first place). Even if the country did not care about nuclear disarmament, maintaining these unnecessary weapons will cost a considerable amount of money. Considering America's current fiscal crisis, this is money that the country can ill afford to lose right now.
Fourth, until the treaty is ratified, there is no verification or inspection system in place between Russia and America, and the world consequently knows nothing about what is going on with the Russian nuclear arsenal. Considering the all-too-frequent occurrences of nuclear weapons material being smuggled out of the country, it is imperative for both American national security and for the security of the world at large to put a rigorous inspection system back in place. Not doing so is the same as casting a dark blanket over Russia's nuclear arsenal, through which we cannot see.
There are many reason why New START needs to be ratified, but the most fundamental one of all is the simple fact that nuclear weapon are a scourge upon the face of the world and that their very existence offends everything that is sacred about our planet. Eliminating them altogether must be the highest priority of Global Citizens, but it can only be done through a gradual, step-by-step process. New START is one of those steps, and the sooner it is ratified, the better.
A very good commentary full of reality and logic.
ReplyDeleteI would only add that New START is essential to stemming nuclear proliferation and preventing nuclear terrorism, the far greater threats we face according the the Nuclear Posture Review released this year.
Over 2,000 metric tons of highly enriched uranium exist in the world today, not all of it known or properly secured. That’s enough HEU for over 120,000 nuclear warheads. Terrorists would love to get their hands on some, they’ve tried. New START and the NPR provide a means of working cooperatively with Russia to locate, safeguard and eliminate HEU and plutonium. How can that be bad?
What is bad is that not a lot of people have nuclear weapons on their radar screens. If they do, they take a furtive sidelong glance at them, then turn away, hoping they'll just go away. Some people actually think they went away at the end of the Cold War in 1989. Sad too the little our youth know about them. Asking about Hiroshima often results in blank looks.
New START Senate testimony from military leaders, scientists, and State Department officials shows full support for ratification, but unless "We the People" make our voices heard for a quick debate and ratification, it may be dragged out for reasons Jeff Brooks gives us.
The word needs to get out thru letters to editors and certainly letters to Senators. Let's talk about nuclear weapons and what they do. Maybe when people see that they'll take a stand to eliminate them.
Thanks for the article Jeff.
Cheers,
Bob Farquhar