EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US-Russia Nuclear Deal a Positive Step
All of us disarmament advocates should be happy about the just-agreed reductions in the arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers. But it's not reason enough to break out the champagne.
The U.S.-Russia agreement is certainly a big deal. Within seven years, both sides will slash their stockpiles of strategic warheads to roughly 1,500, an almost 50 percent reduction. The number of launchers would be cut by half. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association (a person I truly respect) terms it "the first truly post-Cold-War nuclear arms reduction treaty."
But there are still a few glitches. A large one is a recurring nightmare from the 1980s: Star Wars, a.k.a. the missile defense program.
Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl (two people I have no respect for) have threatened to block ratification in the Senate if the agreement contains any binding language at all on missile defense, as the preamble reportedly has some wording dealing with the subject. Since sixty-seven votes are needed in the Senate (just like for any other treaty), this could be a roadblock.
The Russians, on the other hand, are not too happy, even with President Obama's downscaled version of the Reagan/Bush missile defense fantasy. And Obama took the unhelpful stance of refusing to offer any concrete assurances, annoying them and almost derailing the negotiations, as had happened in the past.
"Russia had wanted to cut the nuclear bomb arsenals further under Putin, which would have enabled us to call all the parties to the table to negotiate for their abolition, but no agreement was reached-with the U.S. insisting on having its so-called missile defense systems and plans to dominate space," says Alice Slater of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
The Obama Administration's recent discussion with Romania and Bulgaria about the possibility of these two countries hosting elements of the system has further unnerved the Russians.
"If the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated," threatens Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired general and arms control honcho.
Obama will need considerable skills at navigating these shoals.
And then there are other issues.
The United States and Russia still have 1,000 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment's notice. An accident or a miscalculation on either side could result in an unimaginable cataclysm. I have seen no indication that the new agreement addresses this problem.
And then there's the larger question for those of us committed to a nuclear-free world: Does this treaty move us along that path? Richard Burt of Global Zero (as in zero nuclear weapons) thinks so. The United States and Russia "took a major step toward achieving their goal of global zero," he says.
I wish I could be that optimistic. Matthew Rojansky of the Partnership for a Secure America calculates that there'll still be more than 10,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons left after the agreement takes effect. In spite of the symbolism of the treaty being signed next month in Prague, where Obama made his pledge of ridding the world of nuclear arms, I will believe in a nuclear-free world when I see it.
Still, the agreement is a major step forward. If not the time for a toast, it is at least an occasion to let out a cheer.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
5 Comments so far
Show AllOkay, potentially, we will only have the ability obliterate the world 10 times over instead of 20. I'm not celebrating.
From Russia's point of view, I don't know why they bother with these negotiations, whether we have 1000 or 2000 nuclear warheads it shouldn't make a difference to them. If a nuclear war broke out it would end as quickly as it started once the US hit Moscow and St. Petersburg with a 2 or 3 warheads (illegal but since when has that stopped the US).
It's good business!!! The US nuclear power industry is a big consumer of Russia's weapons grade fuel. They've been quietly lobbying for these reductions, due to limited supplies! Great...let them continue to eat up weapons grade fuel while alternative energy solutions become fully commercialized. I do believe nuclear power has its place in a US energy strategy, but not the conventional approach of the past! I'm a fan of the Molten Salt reactor (e.g.: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, aka LFTR):
1) produces 0.1% of the long lived wastes of light water reactors
2) it's long lived waste decays to background in 300 years, not 300,000 years
3) it runs at near atmospheric pressure...costing much much less to build
4) it has a very simple and inherently safe design
5) it has an excellent negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, naturally responding well to changing demands
6) it doesn't contribute to the weapons grade fuel supply chain (uses cheap/plentiful Thorium 232 as a fuel blanket, begetting U-233 on site and as the fissile isotope)
7) it doesn't require the costly solid fuel reprocessing associated with conventional nuclear power (bad for entrenched industry's business model)
8) it can EAT up the long lived TRU wastes already created by the conventional fleet of reactors (stockpiled TRU waste can be used in a LFTR as a starter fuel)
9) it was already proven back in the 1960's!!!
Alwin Weinberg, a key member of the Manhattan Project and patent holder to many of the light water reactor designs used today, fought against his own designs and for the Molten Salt Reactor. He went against the Atomic Energy Commission because he strongly believed the molten salt reactor design has a higher degree of inherent safety. If one of the greatest minds within the Manhattan Project believed in the Molten Salt reactor...maybe we should take another hard look?
Author Pal's "positive step" verdict and "cheer" on the new pact are premature. According to the BBC, (1) the pact would limit only "deployed" strategic nuclear weapons; (2) only "demand" that the linkage between offensive and defensive systems be recognized; while (3) limiting only "strategic" nuclear weapons to national entities. --The loopholes in the above should be obvious. In addition, as author Pal notes, any pact must run the gauntlet of the US Senate, a corrupt graveyard of anything of human worth.
They tell us that This Time Is Different. Where have we heard that before?
I have an idea, since the republicans have declared open warfare on the legislative branch of government. Retarget our nukes onto republican districts and ask them to stand down on their rhetoric, this might also put an end to the gerrymandering of districts.
peacekeepertwo:Anything Nuclear is a bad Idea.We must find a way to get beyond this. I think our top priority should be finding a safe way to dispose of Nuclear Waste. If you can't dispose of Nuclear Waste,an Arms Agreement doesn't mean much.