How many nuclear warheads are there
still remaining in the world today? Five thousand? Ten thousand?
Would you believe 22,500?
Now, consider this: the New START
treaty on strategic weapons, which is pending ratification in the Senate, would
restrict each side to 1,550 warheads, or a total of 3,100 in both the United
States and Russia.
Do the math. This treaty is not
taking a big bite out of nuclear arsenals. If approved, there will still be
more than 19,000 nuclear weapons in the world. And most of them will still be
in the United States and Russia: tactical nuclear weapons (not covered by this
treaty) and strategic weapons in reserve (also not covered) as well as warheads
that are offline, waiting for dismantlement.
In other words, there is still a ton
of work to do. What's odd about the current debate on whether to ratify New
START is that no one really is arguing that we need so many nukes. No one can point
to the threats that will be deterred. Indeed, now that the Cold War has ended,
it is clear we have an overhang of weapons, far more than we need. They are
like old clothes stuffed in our closet, and we just won't get around to facing
the fact that we will never wear them again.
The current debate over New START is
misplaced. The treaty is good for verification and continuity; the right thing
to do is ratify it, and get moving to the next phase, which ought to get us to
far fewer weapons. Smart roadmaps are already available. A surprisingly good
stack of scholarship has come out recently on how we can reach that
destination. These reports deserve to be read, not just thrown into a file
drawer.
President Obama's Nuclear
Posture Review acknowledged the nuclear overhang. The United States
and Russia "each still retains more nuclear weapons than necessary for stable
deterrence," the report says. This is a document intended to set nuclear policy
for the next five to ten years, endorsed by the military leadership. They get
it: we could go lower.
Then there's an important essay in
the Sept.-Oct. issue of Foreign Affairs, which
is based on extensive computer modeling. The five authors, including three from
Russia with deep experience in Soviet and Russian nuclear forces, show that it
is possible to get down to 1,000 warheads without weakening security on either
side. Another report which endorses one thousand as a goal came out this week
from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Also, take time to read the article
in Strategic Studies Quarterly
(pdf) in which three Air Force thinkers concluded that "America's security can
rest easily" on a comparatively small nuclear force. The United States, they
wrote, could "draw down its nuclear arsenal to a relatively small number of
survivable, reliable weapons dispersed among missile silos, submarines, and
airplanes." They said such a force might number only 311 nuclear weapons. They
get it, too.
For another perspective, read the
report last year by the Federation of American Scientists, which calls
for a change in the nuclear targeting strategy that would also be a step toward
much lower levels of weapons.
And for a vision of a world without
nuclear weapons, read the Global Zero action plan, a
phased approach that would start with the United States and Russia and then
draw in the other nuclear weapons powers.
All of these reports face squarely
the reality that times have changed, and the nuclear arsenals need to change
too.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE