Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have each taken steps to restrict nuclear weapons. Today, the United States and Russia sign a new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). The new treaty makes a few important advances like restricting the number of warheads on a missile and restricting the number of warhead delivery options that can exist and can be deployed, but mostly the new START continues the trend of drastic reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia. As important as the new START, this week President Obama issued his Nuclear Posture Review, "a legislatively-mandated review that establishes U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture for the next five to ten years." It's most important elements are declaring that the US will not conduct any nuclear weapons tests and will not develop any new warheads or weapons. The NPR also declares a further limitation on the actual use of nuclear weapons, stating that the US will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a country if that country does not have nuclear weapons and is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty.
This all sounds like good news, and I certainly celebrate the progress. We've gone from limiting ourselves to 6,000 (!) nuclear warheads in START I, to 1,550 warheads in this latest treaty. But we still have over 1,500 nuclear warheads and the willingness to use them. I'm glad we're stepping back, even a little, from the implicit threat of incinerating millions of innocent people. I agree with Reagan, however, that the only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used, so it would be better to do away with them entirely. So YES, let's do away with them entirely! Must we wait or should we lead? As Obama said a year ago, "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it."
I'm glad we're leading. A long way still to go. I look forward to the voluntary dismantling of our last nuclear weapon...
4 comments:
An expert on NPR today, when asked how many nuclear arms the US had, answered that it depends on how you define it. He went on to say that the US currently had 2,000 warheads loaded into ICBMs or heavy bombers but had a total of 10,000 warheads in its possession. According to him, 2,000 is enough "to destroy nearly every major city on the planet." In other words, we currently own enough warheads to kill nearly the entire human population five times over. Russia, that many more times. Add in India, Pakistan, France, China... You get the idea.
A commitment to reduce the number of nuclear arms in the world is a good thing, but it's hard to imagine any of the nuclear superpowers ever going below a level that is terrifying to the rest of the world. That being the whole point of the weapons. Treaties like START seem to be more about the US and Russia showing that they want to get along than about reducing nuclear arms in a meaningful way. Does limiting the number of times you can destroy the whole world to, say, three really make anyone safer?
One other question that I struggle with is this: How is a treaty whereby two countries reduce their number of nuclear arms not like the faulty assumption that gun control laws prevent guns from being used improperly? Gun control laws have generally only restricted the number and kinds of guns that law abiding citizens own. The bad guys are still armed with automatics shooting cop-killers.
A bad change in leadership in Pakistan, or a little more engineering in Iran, and don't we want a valid nuclear threat of our own?
A world free of nuclear weapons needs both nonproliferation and the destruction of existing weapons. I believe voluntary reduction of existing weapons is an essential component to encouraging nonproliferation.
But both are fantasy, right? Countries without The Bomb are trying DESPERATELY to get it. Those with The Bomb will NEVER give it up.
Or is that just defeatist? If we want a nuclear-free world then can't we start? We can't control what other states do but we can choose for ourselves that we will never use such a ridiculously inhumane weapon. We will NEVER incinerate your women, children, seniors, disabled, your innocents - even if you destroy us.
What a fearless and freeing way to live! Are we brave enough?
In case your last question was not rhetorical, no - not even close.
Post a Comment