It's Not About the Treaty

What Prague means, and doesn't mean, for the future of nuclear weapons.

BY DAVID E. HOFFMAN | APRIL 7, 2010

Arms control is not magic, even if it seems to have high priests and secret codes.

The lesson of the Cold War is that all those complex negotiations and treaties are not by themselves agents of change, but the result of much deeper, underlying forces and the actions of people. Sure, a treaty is vital to lock in decisions and prevent cheating. But of far greater importance are the reasons that brought the two sides to the table in the first place: economics, politics, technology, and military power, as well as the role of leaders such as U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The most effective nuclear arms-control measure of all time was not a treaty, but rather the demise of the Soviet Union and the superpower competition along with it. What caused it? A dysfunctional economic and political system imploded.

So let's hold off on the overheated hyperbole about the Prague treaty that U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are set to sign Thursday. As long as the weapons are still around and on alert, it is unquestionably worthwhile to limit them in a treaty with solid verification provisions. Obama promised last year in his speech in Prague to deliver a treaty that is "sufficiently bold." This one is sufficient, but it's modest, not bold.

High hopes for treaties have often not been realized. Two major treaties negotiated with difficulty, Salt II and Start II, never went into force. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention entered into force, but was so toothless the Soviet Union violated it immediately and seriously. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was abrogated by the United States.

Instead of celebrating this week and breathing a sigh of relief, what we should be doing is getting ready to seize the next big opportunity to reduce the nuclear danger. Russia still looms large. Together, Russia and the United States hold 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. It is vital to move on to the next phase: reducing tactical nuclear weapons, dealing with the large "hedge" of nuclear warheads in reserve, resolving conflict over missile defense, shoring up the weakening global nonproliferation regime, and combating terrorism, among other things.

Yet to do this we must see clearly the underlying forces shaping Russia. The Kremlin may not be eager to negotiate or concede anything soon, wary as it is of NATO at its doorstep and the weakness of its conventional forces. Whoever really governs Russia -- whether it's President Medvedev or Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- may want to stand tall and not negotiate further reductions. Even so, we should try. We inherited a promising age after the Cold War, when the superpowers are no longer at the brink, so let's make good use of it. It can't be as hard as making a deal with the Soviets' long-serving General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and steely Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.

AFP/AFP/Getty Images

 

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor to FP and author of The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy.

SIR_MIXXALOT

12:09 PM ET

April 8, 2010

Unproven waste of money

Obama on missile defense -- tune has changed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k

 

MASINI

12:58 PM ET

April 8, 2010

What we now may seem child's

What we now may seem child's play, in a few years could be so serious. All presidents have signed agreements with Russia. There are still two major world powers. But do not forget that appeared U.E. and China to come hard from behind. Mass will need to be open for them. Then there will be disagreements. It is about who and what controls markets.
auto second hand tractari auto

 

MICHAEL VILKIN

6:16 PM ET

April 8, 2010

Stupid dreams

Russia has twice larger territory than Unites States. Twice more nuclear power is needed to destroy everything on Russian territory. After nuclear reductions we will not be able to burn everything on Russian territory to the ground, especially during a cold Russian winter.
Let me make a prediction. The next war between Russia and the US will start on a very cold day some time in January. American nukes will only cause some regional warming. Some ice in Siberia will melt, but nothing will be burned.
I read Russian forums and discussion groups in Russian. Boy, they hate America... They say that Russians, unlike Americans, are used to hardships, so nuclear war will be much more devastating to the US. The only thing needed is to bring the amount of "nukelar" weapons down to the level where country will still survive the nuclear attack, and after that America will be powerless against Russian blackmail. O'Bum will provide just that.

 

MICHAEL VILKIN

6:34 PM ET

April 8, 2010

5,000 tactical nuclear weapons for Europe

Russia has more than 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons ready to destroy Europe. In a few years Europe will be completely dependent on Russian oil and gas. Russia will simply say, "Folks, you have a simple dilemma.
1. Disband NATO and join the new military alliance, where Russia will dominate. In return, you will get cheap oil and gas, - at least for a while.
2. We cut supply of oil and gas right now, in January,and you will freeze to death.
What choice the stupid Europe will have?
They will abandon NATO and join Russia.
P.S. Do not give me a credit for this brilliant idea. I read it on one of the discussion forums. Russians are smart, and they have good plans for Europe. Unlike O'Bum, they don't dream; they make plans.