Chuck Kennedy/ White House
President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia sign the New START Treaty during a ceremony at Prague Castle in Prague, Czech Republic, April 8, 2010.
The Obama administration has signaled that it seeks broader global reductions in nuclear weaponry. The arms control agreement recently concluded by the United States and Russia should be seen, rightly, as a first step toward talks among all the declared nuclear powers. The reason is simple. U.S. and Russian arsenals simply dwarf those of countries like China, India and Pakistan. Lesser nuclear powers are unlikely to enter such talks absent sharp reductions in U.S. and Russian weaponry.
The deal signed last week by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev is a first step toward reducing worldwide nuclear arsenals. It will reduce U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1500 warheads each, down 700 from the current limits. The agreement possesses a strong historical pedigree, building on a series of U.S.-Soviet and then U.S.-Russian arms control deals beginning with SALT I in 1972 and ending with SORT in 2002. (SALT stands for Strategic Arms Limitations Talks; SORT stands for Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions.)
Even at reduced levels, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia exceed any plausible purpose. Neither Moscow nor Washington needs the capability to destroy each other — or any third country, for that matter — several times over. Russian and U.S. arsenals are essentially an expensive and dangerous legacy of a Cold War that ended 20 years ago.
Has the deal put us on the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons, a goal famously supported by President Ronald Reagan and, more recently, by such foreign policy luminaries as Henry Kissinger, William Perry, George Shultz and Sam Nunn? Perhaps. But the path will be long, difficult and perhaps even impossible. However, the deal signed by President Obama and President Medvedev has merit, whether the ultimate goal is abolition of nuclear weapons or merely a sharp reduction in their numbers.
The agreement may not be taken up by the U.S. Senate until next year. Its ratification — which requires a two-thirds majority — is far from certain. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and Republican Lamar Alexander, for instance, have already expressed reservations. Interestingly, some hardliners in Moscow also dislike the treaty, though legislative ratification in Moscow is near-certain.
Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.