Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia will not agree to a new nuclear arms deal and may have to develop new nuclear arms because of the U.S. missile defense program. Putin says that the U.S. missile defense is holding up any new nuclear arms treaty
President Barack Obama’s desire to begin phasing out nuclear weapons may not be timely when Russia is posturing for increased nuclear arms and so many nations and terrorist groups are trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
Additionally, the nuclear free proposal has run up against strong resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies and the new posturing of Putin will certainly add fuel to the fire.
Unilateral disarmament has never worked anywhere and trying to get the Russians and/or the Chinese to buy into this proposal will be difficult at best.
President Obama laid out his plan for a nuclear free world in a speech in Prague in April, vowing the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Today, the administration is locked in extensive internal debate over a classified policy document for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.
This proposal will have severe impact on the defense industry and the military in the U.S. strategic triad of nuclear submarines, strategic missiles and nuclear bombers.
The current debate represents a major opposition between President Obama’s inner circle and key parts of the national security establishment, following earlier debates over troop levels in Afghanistan and missile defenses in Europe. But more important is the future of U.S. nuclear deterrence policy directly tied to a series of initiatives Obama has advanced as a prime goal of his presidency.
Long range national security policy is the central question here.
The only thing that will work for a nuclear free world is when there is a countermeasure that makes nuclear weapons obsolete.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
All true, but isn’t the real question how to develop a defense against the rogue use of nuclear weapons? It is highly unlikely that Russia or China will actually attack the US or Europe with WMD so why maintain a stock of warheads. Neither is likely that we are going to ferret out Osama bin Laden with a nuclear strike. My point is that other than for deterrent effect why, exactly, do we need to maintain a significant nuclear strike capabiity?
I acknowledge the significant adverse economic impact such a drawdown would have on our key defense industries but I think we could find something else to occupy it.