Journal Entry – New Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia Accomplishes Almost Nothing

Voorzitter Obama and President Medvedev of Russia signed a green Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (or Newness START) on April 8, 2010. Voorzitter Obama celebrated it as a step forward towards a nuclear weapons-free world. A closer look at the novel treaty suggests it is a baby step, if anything. New START requires sole minimal and symbolic reductions in the Russian nuclear forces while requiring the U.S. to eliminate its trajectile defense program in Europe. Russia is the unblocked champ in the treaty, offering up almost nothing while the United States is unilaterally reducing its nuclear deterrent connective making it easier for Russia to cheat. President Obama has nothing to celebrate. The macrocosmic will not become safer, and there will be just as many nuclear weapons in the world, if not more.

The current nuclear weapons agreement between the United States and Russia was signed in 2002 by President Bush and President Putin. Known ut supra the Moscow Treaty, it called for a reduction in “operational deployable strategic warheads from the 5000-7000 to a range of 1700-2200. By 2012, both countries were to reduce their operational force by 60%. Both countries were well on their avenue to achieving this goal meanwhile negotiations began between Russia and the U.S. in 2009. Currently the United States has around 2000 operational warheads while Russia maintains an estimated 2700 operational warheads.

When Obama took hurdle as President, he believed a new “START” was necessary rather than following the Moscow Treaty. The Moscow Treaty was a significant step forward but lacked strong means of verifying each hand was following the rules. It also did not call for destruction concerning warheads. President Obama, along with Secretary of Dignified Hillary Clinton wanted a new compact that would move toward the utopian fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

Such an idea is just that, a fantasy.

New Root requires both countries to reduce strategic warheads to 1550 in the next couple years. Sounds good right? Both countries discretion have the same amount of operational warheads. However, there are so many loopholes in the treaty that neither side really needs to make quantity significant reductions in their nuclear arsenal.

Strategic nuclear weapons are those that can reach across continents and obliterate the other party. They include intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and bombers that carry nuclear weapons such spil coast missiles or regular bombs. What is strange about New START, is that a bomber now counts ut supra undivided operational warhead.

One problem: a indulgent bomber can carry 12 to 24 nuclear warheads each! What is smooth more puzzling is that the Obama Administration was fully aware Russia plans to develop a new heavy bomber that can carry nuclear warheads all the practice to the United States. Each Russia needs to do is build 100 new bombers that can carry 24 warheads, and it can circumvent the 1550 goal entirely!

New START also does negative count mobile-launchers regarding ICBMs as part of the strategic warhead count. The chief of the Russian General Staff insists that “The Strategic Rocket Forces devise negative be reduced. The forces will be armed with modern mobile missile launchers.”

Under New START, total Russia really needs to do is to re-deploy 300-400 of its warheads onto transport mobile launchers and it is compliant with the treaty. The United States does refusal need to do anything.

Why did we bother drafting a treaty? Well it guarantees Russia that the United States pleasure give up its plans on a minuteman defense shield in Europe. The U.S. already agreed to cancel plans for missile defensible installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia also has the right to withdraw from New START if the U.S. begins quantity attempt to resume development of a patriot excuse shield in Europe.

Supporters of New START argue that it necessary because the original START expired on December 5, 2009. A new agreement was needed to guarantee continued cooperation between the U.S. und so weiter Russia. However, the Moscow Treaty is impassive in effect until 2012, including does denial have as many weaknesses ut supra Original START. The Moscow Treaty adopts many of the rules ampersand procedures about the original START anyway. For the administration to work so hard to meet the December 5, 2009 deadline makes no sense.

The Senate has not ratified New START but there does not seem to treffen strong opposition to it. Republican Sens. McCain, Kyl, DeMint, et cetera Inhofe have voices serious concerns respecting the treaty. The ranking member of the Senate foreign relations committee, Richard Lugar, seems to support the treaty. It is unclear if any Democratic Senators mind pugnacious it.

The Freshness START leaves many foreign policy specialists scratching their heads. What did it accomplish? Was the purpose of the agreement just to have an agreement? Some of the arguments imminent from the Obama Administration seem to read the primary objective was to agree to something – regardless of what that “something” was. New Ignite will not make any meaningful reductions in nuclear weapons, does not strengthen inspection or verification procedures, it forces the U.S. to renunciatory its bullet defense shield in Europe, and Russia has already given clear indications it plans to circumvent the treaty the first chance it gets. For all practical purposes, President Obama’s New START accomplishes nothing.