President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (or New START) on April 8, 2010. President Obama celebrated it as a step forward towards a nuclear weapons-free world. A closer look at the new treaty suggests it is a baby step, if anything. New START requires only minimal and symbolic reductions in the Russian nuclear forces while requiring the U.S. to eliminate its missile defense program in Europe. Russia is the clear winner in the treaty, giving up almost nothing while the United States is unilaterally reducing its nuclear deterrent and making it easier for Russia to cheat. President Obama has nothing to celebrate. The world 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 as 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 way to achieving this goal when 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 over 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 side was following the rules. It also did not call for destruction of warheads. President Obama, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted a new treaty that would move toward the utopian fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

Such an idea is just that, a fantasy.

New START requires both countries to reduce strategic warheads to 1550 in the next couple years. Sounds good right? Both countries will have the same amount of operational warheads. However, there are so many loopholes in the treaty that neither side really needs to make any 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 as cruise missiles or regular bombs. What is strange about New START, is that a bomber now counts as one operational warhead.

One problem: a heavy bomber can carry 12 to 24 nuclear warheads each! What is even 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 way to the United States. All Russia needs to do is build 100 new bombers that can carry 24 warheads, and it can circumvent the 1550 limit entirely!

New START also does not count mobile-launchers of ICBMs as part of the strategic warhead count. The chief of the Russian General Staff insists that “The Strategic Rocket Forces will not be reduced. The forces will be armed with modern mobile missile launchers.”

Under New START, all Russia really needs to do is to re-deploy 300-400 of its warheads onto railroad mobile launchers and it is compliant with the treaty. The United States does not need to do anything.

Why did we bother drafting a treaty? Well it guarantees Russia that the United States will give up its plans on a missile defense shield in Europe. The U.S. already agreed to cancel plans for missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia also has the right to withdraw from New START if the U.S. begins any attempt to resume development of a missile defense 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 ensure continued cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. However, the Moscow Treaty is still in effect until 2012, and does not have as many weaknesses as New START. The Moscow Treaty adopts many of the rules and procedures of 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 be strong opposition to it. Republican Sens. McCain, Kyl, DeMint, and Inhofe have voices serious concerns about 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 will oppose it.

The New START leaves many foreign policy experts scratching their heads. What did it accomplish? Was the purpose of the agreement just to have an agreement? Some of the arguments coming from the Obama Administration seem to indicate the primary objective was to agree to something – regardless of what that “something” was. New START will not make any meaningful reductions in nuclear weapons, does not strengthen inspection or verification procedures, it forces the U.S. to abandon its missile 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.

Author Bio: J. Wesley Fox is the Chairman of Restore America’s Legacy PAC. He is a recent graduate of DePaul University College of Law and has been active in local and national politics for several years. He currently lives in New Jersey after growing up in the Chicago suburbs.www.restoreamericaslegacy.com

Category: Politics
Keywords: Nuclear weapons,strategic arms reduction treaty,President Obama,Medvedev,strategic nuclear warheads