U.S., Russia Agree to Large Nuclear Arsenal Cuts
Mushroom cloud over Nagasaki
One problem in the international realm is that unproductive conflicts between nations are exciting and headline grabbing, while amicable positive-sum interests tend to be a bit boring. Thus Barack Obama heading to Russia, focusing his summit activities on an issue where agreement was likely, and coming away quickly with an agreement in principle to hammer out the details of big bilateral cuts in nuclear arsenals hasn’t attracted much attention. If Obama had done something much less intelligent and gotten in a big, but ultimately pointless, public argument with the Russians about NATO membership for Ukraine or something it probably would have gotten more play. But agreement is good and conflict is bad. Leaders who seek agreement should be rewarded. And it ought to be noted that what’s been agreed to is a pretty big deal:
Arms-control analysts who support Obama’s determination to conclude a new START agreement say that the stated reductions are significant because they are realistic enough to receive the legislative-branch ratification required in both countries, yet ambitious enough to act as a first step toward Obama’s vision of a world eventually free of nuclear arsenals.
“They’ve hit the sweet spot in finding numbers that will be a significant reduction and likely to get the necessary support in their respective parliaments,” says Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a Washington foundation focused on nuclear-weapons reduction and nonproliferation.
The numbers announced Monday, Mr. Cirincione notes, amount to a 30 percent reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries that possess 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.”
In other words, that’s a roughly 28 percent reduction in the total number of nuclear weapons in the world. It’s also a powerful signal to the French, British, and especially Chinese that the United States and Russia are serious about reducing arsenals and that the Obama administration really wants to pursue a nuclear-free world. The fact that the US and Russia contain such a large proportion of global nukes is, after all, a bit of an anachronism as in pretty much all other respects China has clearly replaced Russia as the number two geopolitical player and in some domains the European Union has set itself up as a more-or-less independent great power. It would be very plausible for the Chinese (and much less plausible, though still possible, for the Europeans) to decide they need to react to this situation by “leveling up” and building their own arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons.
Steps that give the Chinese confidence that they don’t need to do that, that the US and Russia are prepared to level down, will do an enormous amount to help build a more peaceful, more secure world. Not only in terms of the US-China relationship, but also in terms of India’s thinking about its nuclear needs and therefore Pakistan’s thinking and therefore the general problem of proliferation around the world. These reductions, if they come to pass, will be a huge deal.
41 Responses to “U.S., Russia Agree to Large Nuclear Arsenal Cuts”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Actually, it’s a powerful signal to Iran and NKorea that they are going to have more influence than they dreamed possible. Beyond that, what in the world makes Obama think the Russians are going to uphold their end of the bargain? While I’m at it why is Obama supporting a wannabe Chavez in Honduras?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
In response to the above:
1. That’s dumb for a bunch of reasons.
2. Because we don’t support military coups
thxkbye
July 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Patrick – your response says “I don’t know who shooter is.” Let me introduce you – he’s a total fucking moron who spent the last decade supporting the total dumbfuck who infested the White House. The day he says something, even vaguely, intelligent will be – well – never.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:10 am
This aspiration for a nuclear free world sounds quite unlikely as an Obama goal. But reducing the number of nuclear weapons to the hundreds from the tens of thousands is a worthy project. At lower numbers, nuclear security should be much, much better and extinction from nuclear war will also no longer be a concern.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I’m kind of wondering if major arms control treaties like this always got the shaft from the media — like did Carter get asked about Elvis during the early stages of SALT II?
If not, what’s changed?
July 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
1) Actually, the reduction in Minuteman ICBMs may make nuclear war MORE likely, rather than less likely.
2) Because now a Russian Counterforce strike on our missiles fields in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota would still spread massive volumes of fallout over our food-producing areas of the Midwest –but the fallout plume would unfortunately not reach the underground bunkers surrounding the Washington DC area –because the reduction in missile fields and in Russian ICBMS will reduce the size of the plume.
See http://www.radmeters4u.com/states/aacont2.jpg
3) The only thing that has deterred nuclear war has been our leaders feeling that their butts were on the line as well.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Did the similar treaties between Reagan and Gorbachev leave France and South Africa with the signal that they are going to have more influence than they dreamed possible? No, they did not.
Because the Russians have upheld their end of every nuclear arms reduction bargain they ever struck. In fact, it was the Bush administration that abrogated the US/Russian treaties of the 70s and 80s, and the Russians who futilely demanded that the US – meaning Bush – adhere to them.
Because he is the lawful, democratically-elected president of that country, and Barack Obama supports democracy and opposed dictatorship.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Your response is long on paranoia, but short on historical perspective. This isn’t a radical departure from the process we’ve gone through in the last several rounds of arms limitation and reduction treaties, dating back to SALT in the 1960s. The Russian nuclear arsenal peaked around 40,000 near the end of the cold war. Bringing that down has been a long, phased process.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:18 am
mpowell,
Let’s remember, Obama said of a nuclear-free world: “We may not get there in my lifetime.”
I think he sounds pretty realistic. He’s taking his shot, getting the ball rolling, even as he knows there is a long journey ahead.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:19 am
It also means that the part of the country that voted for John McCain/Sarah Palin in the last election rather than Obama might not be buried under 10,000 rads of radiation if Sarah was ever elected. I find that prospect ..uh.. annoying.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:20 am
The US and Russia will still have enough nuclear weapons to render almost any other country incapable of acting as a state. To Iran or N. Korea, it doesn’t matter if the US has 1000 nuclear warheads or 10,000. Smaller nations are not building nuclear weapons to combat our huge nuclear arsenals. They are building them to deter our huge conventional forces.
The US and USSR spent decades developing first-strike capacity. The huge numbers of warheads was implemented to ensure a reliable deterrant existed after a first strike. Lesser powers will not have that capacity. A US nuclear first strike will eliminate almost any nation’s capacity to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
We might avoid future arms races in which nations stockplile 10,000+ warheads, but there is always going to be an incentive for small nuclear arsenals while there is a conventional superpower capable of waging war without the consent of the world at large. We would do more to encourage nations to drop their nuclear weapons programs by reducing our conventional forces.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:23 am
One problem in the international realm is that unproductive conflicts between nations are exciting and headline grabbing, while amicable positive-sum interests tend to be a bit boring.
This is only a problem if you are shallow and media-centric and believe that something is important only if it gets on TV.
Isn’t it amazing that international diplomacy actually existed before they invented cable news networks – and still exists today even though it must compete with sharks and lost blonde women for attention and importance.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Don Williams,
Don’t you think the White House and Pentagon are going to be targets in any conceivable nuclear launch against the United States?
July 7th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Re: #6 and seconding #13: I’m having a hard time imagining a scenario in which the USSR peppers our missile fields with nukes but leaves our command & control centers completely untouched. In a late-model Tom Clancy novel perhaps.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Re joe at 13:
“Don’t you think the White House and Pentagon are going to be targets in any conceivable nuclear launch against the United States?”
———–
Sure — but there are bunkers scattered in an arc around Washington DC — about 60 to 100 miles out — that would provide bolt holes for the national leadership. Some have been revealed and presumably would be targeted –some have not. See,e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock,_Pennsylvania
But supplies eventually run out — and you don’t have many options if the countryside around you is still radioactive.
Note that attacks on cities like Washington DC would probably be with airbursts — because they are most efficient. Airbursts create little to no fallout. Digging up ICBM silos would require ground bursts however, and would create massive plumes of fallout. Destination depends up current jet stream pattern and weather (i.e, fallout being pulled out of the sky and deposited by thunderstorms.)
July 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Another major underground nuclear war bunker outside Washington DC — Mount Weather in Upperville , Virginia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather
July 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…”
July 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Honestly I think nuclear weapons get a bad rap. As far as I can tell the existence of nuclear weapons and the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction incentivized nuclear countries to avoid conventional wars between each other. I honestly do not think that the US and Russia would have avoided war without the spector of nukes staying their hands.
Now obviously this only works when the governments that have nuclear weapons are rational actors and not reckless like North Korea, or nations like Iran or Pakistan which are either willing to give weapons to terrorists or not sufficently able to prevent terrorists from taking them. But nukes in the hands of people who are not pant-on-head crazy it seems to me has had a net positive effect on world relations.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
On the other hand, it is rather easy for the Russians to target the US Congress in a nuclear war — they just have to look for hiding places under the 5 star hotels within a helicopter flight of Washington DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenbrier
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenbrier#The_Bunker
July 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Don’s posts have a certain pessimistic logic, but I think we should regard the most likely source of nuclear detonation (at least, of a warhead from the US or Russian arsenals) as an accidental/unsanctioned launch or terrorist attack. Both of these scenarios become more likely in direct proportion to the number of nuclear missiles in the world.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Honestly I think nuclear weapons get a bad rap.
In historical terms, its rather early to judge, isn’t it? The positives of the decades of deterrence would be easily wiped out by any serious nuclear exchange, triggered accidentally or otherwise.
Just like, if the financial shenanigans lead to a second Great Depression, nobody would care that the financial system was awesome for a couple of decades before that.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Re CAP at 14: “I’m having a hard time imagining a scenario in which the USSR peppers our missile fields with nukes but leaves our command & control centers completely untouched.”
———–
The Russians would have to leave someone alive who could negotiate surrender. Who do you think they would find it easiest to con/intimidate — Sarah Palin or a Stratcom General?
July 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Re JD at 18: “Now obviously this only works when the governments that have nuclear weapons are rational actors and not reckless like North Korea”
———–
Do you think there is the slightest fucking difference between the brain wave patterns of Sarah Palin and Kim Jong Il?
They even wear the same windowpane eyeglasses, for Christ’s sake.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Steps that give the Chinese confidence that they don’t need to do that, that the US and Russia are prepared to level down, will do an enormous amount to help build a more peaceful, more secure world. Not only in terms of the US-China relationship, but also in terms of India’s thinking about its nuclear needs and therefore Pakistan’s thinking and therefore the general problem of proliferation around the world.
This really is the big thing: China wants to have the capability of playing with the big boys; India wants to be able to deter China; Pakistan wants a deterrent against India. And we’d all breathe a lot easier if Pakistan didn’t have nukes.
So if the U.S. and Russia make substantial cuts in their arsenals, then with any luck China, hence India, hence Pakistan, wouldn’t feel the need to keep on ramping up their arsenals.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: …that’s a roughly 28 percent reduction in the total number of nuclear weapons in the world. It’s also a powerful signal to the French, British, and especially Chinese that the United States and Russia are serious about reducing arsenals and that the Obama administration really wants to pursue a nuclear-free world. The fact that the US and Russia contain such a large proportion of global nukes is, after all, a bit of an anachronism as in pretty much all other respects China has clearly replaced Russia as the number two geopolitical player and in some domains the European Union has set itself up as a more-or-less independent great power. It would be very plausible for the Chinese (and much less plausible, though still possible, for the Europeans) to decide they need to react to this situation by “leveling up” and building their own arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
[...] arsenal, Russia, United States, Yglesias | Leave a Comment As Matthew Yglesias points out here, the stated reductions in both the U.S.’s and Russia’s nuclear arsenals is a pretty big [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Re: Honduras. Apparently some of you don’t understand that the democratically elected President is trying to become a dictator like Chavez.
Currently Obama is on the same side as Castro, Chavez, and Daniel Ortega. That should tell you all you need to know.
PS. There was no military coup, they were acting on orders from the Supreme Court after the President tried to go outside the Constitution.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
This is a disaster. With fewer nukes, we may only be able to devastate every square inch of the earth once or twice.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
So if the U.S. and Russia make substantial cuts in their arsenals, then with any luck China, hence India, hence Pakistan, wouldn’t feel the need to keep on ramping up their arsenals.
The problem is that Iran will get nukes soon – an Israeli strike willl just delay it – and then Saudi Arabia and Egypt will “ramp up” production.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Alternatively, China could now decide they have a chance of catching up.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Who gives a crap what the Wall Street Journal, which has never seen a military coup it didn’t applaud, has to say? This is the media organ that continues to wail about the notoriously corrupt Minnesota county governments and courts stealing the Senatorial election. Who cares how those people characterize an election, and who cares how they characterize a military coup?
Their argument is absurd. Zelaya was going to become a dictator…by getting a referendum passed…in the election in which his successor was chosen.
Here is the language of the question Zelaya proposed, in its entirety:
“Do you agree with the installation of a fourth ballot box during the 2009 general elections so that the people can decide on the calling of a national constituent assembly? Yes or no.”
So, if this referendum had passed, several weeks or months after his retirement, there would have been a constitutional assembly, that might or might not have changed the president’s term limit. This is why we’re supposed to support a military coup.
As well as the right-wing governments of Mexico and Colombia and, oh yeah, every single other government in the western hemisphere and the EU. THAT should tell you all you need to know.
Non hoc ergo propter hoc. The first part of your sentence has no relationship to the second. Military personnel grabbed the president, physically forced him out of office, and bundled him onto a plane leaving the country. It doesn’t really matter what other institutions were complicit in the military coup. Almost all military coups garner the support of some of the country’s institutions.
They didn’t impeach Zelaya; they launched a coup and removed him.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“One problem in the international realm is that unproductive conflicts between nations are exciting and headline grabbing, while amicable positive-sum interests tend to be a bit boring.”
That’s just asinine. If you assume that world powers never have competing interests, then that might make sense. In the real world (as opposed to the unicorn driven fantasy-land Matt seems to live in), powers do have competing interests. Conflicts may be productive or unproductive, but you can’t wish them away by having pleasant summit meetings.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Steps that give the Chinese confidence that they don’t need to do that, that the US and Russia are prepared to level down, will do an enormous amount to help build a more peaceful, more secure world. Not only in terms of the US-China relationship, but also in terms of India’s thinking about its nuclear needs and therefore Pakistan’s thinking and therefore the general problem of proliferation around the world. These reductions, if they come to pass, will be a huge deal.
============================================================
You act as though this hadn’t been happening
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801253.html
Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program
The Bush administration yesterday announced its intention to modernize and sharply reduce the size of the nation’s aging nuclear weapons program by closing or abandoning 600 buildings at facilities across the country and gradually reducing the associated workforce by at least 7,200.
D’Agostino also announced that President Bush has approved a new reduction of 15 percent in active U.S. nuclear weapons, which is scheduled to be completed by 2012. Those reductions will leave the active stockpile at “less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said yesterday.
Several independent experts said yesterday that roughly 4,600 warheads will remain in the U.S. arsenal, down from about 16,000 at the end of the Cold War and from 10,500 when Bush came into office. President George H.W. Bush eliminated thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, mostly ones placed in Europe and Asia.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Oh no! Obama just gave away the farm!
Time to get my shovel out and start digging. I gotta lot of work to do. Anybody know how to pour concrete?
July 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Shit. I also got a lot of shopping to do. Better check some supermarket fliers. I need canned goods, in bulk, and quick.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
And it ought to be noted that what’s been agreed to is a pretty big deal
In other words, that’s a roughly 28 percent reduction in the total number of nuclear weapons in the world. It’s also a powerful signal to the French, British, and especially Chinese that the United States and Russia are serious about reducing arsenals and that the Obama administration really wants to pursue a nuclear-free world.
=============================================================
I just read this again and it’s hilarious
According to the Washington Post, in 2007 Bush announced reductions of the US arsenal from 10,500 to 4,600 – a 56% reduction. Obama says he’s willing to NEGOTIATE a further 28% reduction and we’re supposed to be impressed?
July 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
re: Honduras
July 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Re: Honduras
Quite so, a referendum that was illegal and the purview of the Congress. Instead of being a reflexive communist sympathizer read these cites.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
[...] would amount to a very significant reduction in the global nuclear weapons “cache.” Matt Yglesias’ take is worth reading: In other words, that’s a roughly 28 percent reduction in the total number of nuclear weapons in [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Idiot-boy yells “communist,” because that’s what idiot-boy does.
If the President engages in illegal activity, you impeach him and remove him from office. You don’t lawlessly force him onto an airplane at gunpoint.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
You do realize that all you’re doing here is advertising the fact that you support this coup because of Cold War politics, right?
I guess Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, and the right-wing governments of Colombia and Mexico are “reflexive communist sympathizers” too, right?