The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has begun hearings on President Obama’s recently negotiated arms control treaty with Russia. The ‘Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty’ was signed by the President in April and submitted to the Senate for ratification in May. The Senate must ratify the treaty with a 2/3rd vote in order for it to become law in the United States. The President is hoping for a vote on ratification before the November election. Constitutionally, treaty ratification requires 67 senate votes –something that will be difficult for the 59 Senate Democrats to get now and almost surely impossible after the November election, when the Republicans are likely to increase their number in the Senate.
This treaty is being referred to as the New START Treaty –although the title does not lend itself to that acronym. The words in the actual treaty title are disturbing. If we reduce “offensive” weapons, we are saying that we prefer to be a reactive nation where our security is concerned rather than being a proactive nation where our security is concerned. The Reagan Doctrine of ‘Peace through Strength’ is no longer in force. The Bush II Doctrine of ‘Unilateral Preemption’ is no longer in force.
During the Cold War with the now-defunct Soviet Union we had a nuclear policy of Mutual Assured Destruction; it was known by the apropos acronym of MAD. This was the policy that made Americans wonder why we –and the Soviets– needed enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 26 times over. But this was also the reason we didn’t blow up the world; MAD was the nuclear deterrent of the Cold War Era. In order to be a deterrent, we each needed to have the same number of nuclear weapons –missiles, warheads, etc. As long as we had the same number, neither nation would engage in ‘first use’ of those weapons. When Ronald Reagan came into office he began to upgrade and increase our weapons and modernize our nuclear arsenal, and missile defense research began –culminating in SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative –space-based missile defense). Missile defense systems, whether ground-based or space-based, are designed to intercept missiles coming at us or our allies. We need the space-based defense system because missiles coming at us have to leave the atmosphere; our European and Asian allies need ground-based defense systems because missiles coming at them don’t need to leave the atmosphere. Reagan’s upgrade and build-up of our weapons systems made MAD no longer an issue; we went way above and beyond what the Soviets had. We certainly were not going to engage in ‘first use’ but if we did, we would be the last man standing because we had more missiles. Additionally, SDI made the Soviet missiles obsolete because we could now shoot them down. Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has admitted since leaving office that Reagan’s doctrine of ‘Peace through Strength’ won the Cold War –something our own media has never been willing to admit.
Why the history lesson? Bush II made an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place ground-based missile defense systems in their nations. This deployment began before Bush left office. When President Obama came into office he stopped the deployment of those systems at the demand of the Russians. Bush was placing those defense systems in Europe in order to intercept missiles coming from the Middle East (Iran, Syria, Libya). The Russians saw these defense systems aimed at them and their missiles. Of course, if you have no intention of firing missiles at these European nations, why would the missile defense system bother you?
Present Day: the new treaty signed by President Obama and the Russians, which is now being considered for ratification in the Senate, not only requires that we reduce our nuclear arsenal, it also prohibits us from using missile silos for anti-missile defensive weapons. We converted a few missile silos in California to anti-missile interceptors a few years ago in reaction to the growing threat from the Communist Chinese –who now have the capability of hitting at least California and probably Chicago with nuclear missiles. Under this treaty with the Russians, we will not be able to convert any more silos for this purpose.
This new treaty seeks a level of missile parity with the Russians –a throwback to the Cold War doctrine of MAD. In order to have parity once again, we need to reduce our nuclear arsenal because we have more nuclear weapons than do the Russians. We also have more technologically advanced weapons systems than do the Russians. The Obama Administration is planning to address this disparity –not just through this treaty with the Russians but also through its own defense policies.
The recently released 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines the nuclear plans and policies of the Obama Administration.
- The Administration pledges not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations who have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Iran and Syria are NPT signatories – as was North Korea while Bush II was in office.)
- Our ICBMs will be de-MIRV’d. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles have the capability of carrying multiple warheads that are each targeted independently. So one missile can be launched that has maybe six warheads that can hit six different targets. The Obama Administration is going to remove this capability from our ICBMs. (The new treaty with the Russians allows them to keep and expand their arsenal of MIRVs.)
- The U.S. will not conduct any nuclear tests or develop any new nuclear weapons. The Administration has pledged to rely on the ‘refurbishment’ and ‘reuse’ of the nuclear systems and components we have now. (And keep our fingers crossed that these will work if we ever need to use them.)
Arms control expert and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, sees the U.S. as moving from nuclear superiority to parity with the Russians under the new treaty and, ultimately, to inferiority toward the Russians –or any other nuclear-armed power. President Obama, idealistically, wants a world without nuclear weapons. Realistically, America will be the only non-nuclear power in the President’s “utopia.”
Maryann Zihala, J.D. is a Political Scientist and USAF Cold War Veteran. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
