ColinSense: A New START

Colin Hannfin

Columnist

We’re a long way from the politics and crises of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall fell more than 20 years ago, and the Soviet Union crumbled under its failed attempt at communism. The focus of global politics shifted radically, from the two great superpowers to the prevailing economic system that is globalization. Yet remnants of the Cold War remain—namely, the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons we have all ready to fire, just in case Russia resumes hostilities.

President Barack Obama seems to have taken the first steps to remove the strategic element that is mutually assured destruction. On Thursday he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This treaty replaces the old START, which expired in December.

Obama applauds this joining of Russia and the United States as part of his delivery on his campaign promise to reduce nuclear arms. Within seven years, a limit of 1,550 will be enforced on nuclear warheads, according to CNN.com.

The treaty also takes steps to quell worries of concerned Americans. According to a CNN.com article, citing the concern expressed by Russia’s response to an Eastern European nuclear shield (they were none too pleased, to say the least), defensive weapons will not count toward the total. Another key issue was verification – we don’t want to lower our guard if Russia doesn’t follow the stipulations of the treaty – but Obama has insisted that the treaty sets up a strong verification regime.

News of this treaty comes just days after Obama had announced his new nuclear weapon policy. The Nuclear Posture Review recognizes that America’s greatest nuclear threat does not come from other nations, but from rogue terrorist organizations, according to a statement from Obama. It reaffirms his campaign promise that nuclear disarmament is “at the top of America’s nuclear agenda.” The signing of the treaty will occur one week before Obama is set to host 47 countries in a nuclear security summit in Washington, where he hopes to secure worldwide support for the “global non-proliferation regime,” according to his statement.

However, this treaty is not without its critics or worrying points. As the Washington Points touches on, and Huffington Post’s Dan Froomkin expands on, the treaty does not remove nuclear arms from high alert. Nuclear weapons are right now on standby, and ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Froomkin asserts that this is of much graver concern than the number of warheads we have. With so many weapons on high alert, there seems to be an increased chance of something going wrong—as Bruce Blair, leader of the World Security Institute, tells the Huffington Post, the treaty should focus on locking down the weapons, not merely decreasing the number of warheads.

Indeed, history seems to be on Blair and Froomkin’s side. After all, it was just in 2007 that Army Times reported that a B-52 mistakenly flew over American soil with six armed nuclear weapons on board. It wasn’t just a short jump over American soil either—this was from North Dakota to Louisiana. While nothing went wrong with the flight, we were one small disaster from a nuclear bomb hitting a mid-America town. If these kins of accidents occur on American soil, with American weapons, how much better could it be in Russia? It seems as though this kind of mishap would only happen more often there.

While the Nuclear Posture Review and START with Russia are steps in the right direction, it seems that Obama has missed the point. He should know better than most: In an April 23, 2007 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said, “President Bush once said, ‘The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status—another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.’ Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will.” He has yet to truly act on this campaign promise, and until he does, nuclear proliferation – even accidental – is still a very real threat.