Originally published on the CGS blog on April 17, 2014.
Last week, the US administration of Barack Obama announced that it would reduce the number of deployed US Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) from 450 to 400. The silos that housed these nuclear weapons will be maintained, unfortunately, and the 50 weapons will be stored rather than dismantled. The reduction comes as part of the United States’ obligations under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation.
The treaty requires both parties to limit their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 and reduce their nuclear weapons delivery systems to 800 (700 deployed) by 2018. As of October, 2013, the Russian Federation had already accomplished this reduction with 473 reported deployed delivery systems. The US currently has 886 deployed and non-deployed delivery systems, still above the 2018 goal.
As I’ve written before, nuclear weapons are a grave threat to international peace and security. Near misses have devastating potential as do the testing and of course actual use of nuclear weapons. As the on-going consequences of the Chernobyl, and more recently Fukushima, nuclear reactor accidents show, even peaceful nuclear power can pose great risks. As a result, any and all reduction in total worldwide nuclear stockpiles is a step forward. But, bilateral agreements between the world’s two largest nuclear arms holders, while promising if they do actually further reduce nuclear stockpiles, should only be part of the equation.
Bilateral and unilateral actions, such as the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, do not necessarily improve security and in fact often lead to more danger. This is particularly important to remember as the threat of sanctions and force against Iran by the United States and Israel continues even as negotiations over its nuclear program are on-going. Or consider the likely possibility of a new Indian government with a provocative stance towards nuclear first strikes. International cooperation is essential to reduce the perception that such actions and positions are necessary and it is multilateral, international arms treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), that can provide the framework for movement towards a nuclear free world.
The NPT entered into force in 1970, yet has not accomplished its goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. As a result, we can debate whether we need a new international non-proliferation treaty or if signatories simply need to fulfill their commitments under the existing international treaty. Clearly in either case new strategies for encouraging nations to fulfill their obligations are needed. The increasing number of regional Nuclear Weapon Free Zones could be a promising strategy towards the worldwide goal and we need to see a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in North America, just as we do in the Middle East or East Asia.
The fact remains that the only way forward is to continue to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons and the dismantling of all nuclear stockpiles. There is no doubt that while states may pursue nuclear weapons for the perceived deterrence capability they seem to provide, in the long run nuclear weapons do not make anyone safer. In fact, their continued existence keeps the world’s people on the razor’s edge of survival and destruction.
