New START: Less is More

This post appeared in The Truman Doctrine on 23 July 2012.

When it comes to bombs, the conventional Cold War arms-race wisdom was “The more, the better.”

When it comes to nuclear weapons, this thinking produces diminishing returns. President Obama, along with President Reagan, understood this. There are some, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who still argue that reducing America’s nuclear arsenal threatens our national security. Romney still names Russia as America’s greatest foe. In 2011, GOP Senators held out as long as they could against ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia on this thought-basis. But there is such a thing as enough nukes and the benefits of bilateral nuclear arms reductions to our national security outweigh any cost.

How many nuclear weapons does America need? Let’s do the quick devil’s arithmetic. Nagasaki, Japan had a population of roughly 240,000, (think Madison, Wisconsin) in 1945. It was destroyed by the ‘Fat Man’ device with an estimated yield of 20 kilotons of TNT. It destroyed virtually all buildings, caused 3rd degree burns to tissue, and immediate death from radiation within four kilometers of the epicenter. The deadly effects spread as far as twelve square kilometers.

If America wanted (to borrow a phrase from Iranian President Ahmadinejad) to literally wipe all 1.65 million square kilometers of Iran off the map, we would need over 137,000 ‘Fat Man’ devices. Using today’s nukes, we would need a little over 2,300. New START allows America and Russia to possess 1,550 strategic warheads apiece. That is still more than enough to destroy all population centers in any country in the world; enough to destroy every living thing in 1 million square kilometers.

America still maintains a very significant nuclear arsenal under New START. Other studies have shown that America needs as few as 300 nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence. What the U.S. gets in return from New START is a reduction in nuclear arms outside of its own borders. ‘Loose nukes’ provide many nightmare scenarios involving terrorist attacks in America, its overseas installations, and its allies. The U.S. has spent millions on programs to buy or secure foreign nuclear weapons and materials. The breakup of the USSR and breaches in the nuclear security of western countries by state-directed nuclear espionage programs have led to a doubling of the nuclear club. Iran appears to want to be the newest member.

As Iran’s struggle to get the bomb shows, it is difficult to start a nuclear program from scratch, especially after the cat is out of the bag about its existence. Iraq and Syria’s nascent nuclear programs were allegedly nipped in the bud by Israeli airstrikes. Iran has years of nuclear refinement ahead of it to produce a significant nuclear arsenal and it is facing stiff international diplomatic and economic resistance. It is far easier to piggyback or reverse engineer off of intelligence and materials from another existing nuclear state. Iran is receiving assistance from Russia and China. Once successful, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle, as North Korea and Pakistan show.

The United States and the Obama administration should continue to do all it can to reduce the amount of nuclear warheads, material, and knowledge in the world outside of its borders. New START does this while allowing America to maintain a more than sufficient nuclear deterrent of its own. Sometimes less is more.

Back to the START

New START was confirmed by a large majority vote in the U.S. Senate in December, 2010 and is now valid between the United States and Russia.

As a former U.S. Army nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons specialist I was always skeptical of the assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After I hit ground in Iraq in April, 2003, it soon became clear he didn’t have any. The U.S. searched the entire country for months trying to find them, but to this day nothing more than a few dusty chlorine gas mortars have ever turned up in Iraq. The rest is history.

Having gone to war in Iraq over ‘possible’ weapons of mass destruction, why would we dither, delay, or play politics with a treaty that would allow us to continue a responsible, voluntary inspection regime with a partner state that we know for a fact, with certainty, has nuclear arms, lots of them, and is simply waiting for the U.S. Senate to sign on the dotted line? Ask the Senate GOP leadership.

The old START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was negotiated and signed in the early nineties under President George H.W. Bush, based on earlier treaties agreed by President Ronald Reagan. The treaty served the U.S. well through the era of instability at the end of the Cold War and the New START would simply continue what was already a good idea. It has served us well for the last two decades and, if passed, would continue to today. It would reduce nuclear stockpiles by one third on both sides, still leaving America with more than enough firepower to defend itself. It would responsibly allow mutual transparency and allow us to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons and material.

In addition to the original concerns START was designed to address, more modern concerns may be added to the list of reasons New START must be passed now, not later. Nuclear proliferation is a tremendous concern today, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reducing stockpiles means less nukes and nuclear material that could fall into the hands of unstable states or groups. Fewer nuclear weapons, less nuclear material, and better control makes us all safer.

North Korea and Pakistan have already acquired nuclear weapons through the back door and Iran is certainly trying to. The black-market smuggling ring led by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan shows there is a hot market worldwide for nuclear technology. For an entire year already America has been unable to account for all of Russia’s nuclear material and there are certainly buyers out there who will stop at nothing to acquire it. New START would close the loophole. Not doing so is like crossing our fingers and hoping nothing happens.

Nuclear terrorism is the ultimate threat to United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have already stated they are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. They’re not alone. Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas would also jump at the chance. Hollywood never stops thinking up movie plots involving a nuke smuggled into America. If they can think of it, so can terrorists and extremists. For these reasons the U.S. military is also urging the passage of New START. Keeping nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of terrorists is a top national security priority. Not signing New START would be reckless and leave us vulnerable to attack.

The Senate Republican leadership opposes passing the treaty because of politics. They are more concerned with opposing President Obama than they are keeping America safe. There is bipartisan support for the treaty and it would and certainly should be ratified, if only the GOP leadership would put politics aside and put our security first. START was entered into between two states that possessed the nuclear arms to ensure they would mutually destroy one another in a nuclear attack. ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ kept America and the USSR at a standstill. Today, unstable states and terrorist groups are not so inclined. Extremists and terrorists are unconcerned about the destruction a nuclear attack would create on both sides and many are already fully prepared to die for their cause.

GOP opposition to New START is outdated, out of touch, and disastrously dangerous. The treaty needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate as soon as possible so that we can jointly and responsibly reduce and monitor nuclear weapons and material, prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and put our security first. New START needs to be signed by the Senate now. We don’t need more politics. It’s the right thing to do for our national security and that cannot wait.