The Wall Street Journal just published a second op-ed by George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn that calls for a nuclear-weapon free world. If the first one, published a year ago, provided a vision, this one outlines a number of steps that can be undertaken without much delay.
I think it is a very good letter. Most steps outlined there are hardly controversial (at least they should not be) - extending START, eliminating hair-trigger alert, getting U.S. and Russia to commit to further reductions, getting the United States to ratify the CTBT. But it is, of course, very important to see all of them together and united by the ultimate goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons. Among other things, it is very good to see that the op-ed mentions the Minot incident as something that we all should worry about.
Overall, the discussion at the meetings at Hoover (I'm glad I had a chance to be at the first meeting in 2006 and was invited to take part in the 2007 one) was extremely encouraging. It was good to see that even the cold-war stalwarts (you know who they are) can talk seriously about elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Hoover Institution posted videos of all sessions on its web site: Opening remarks, Session 1 and Session 2 of Day 1, George Shultz reading Arnold Schwarzenegger's keynote address (he could not come himself because of the fires in Southern California), Session 1 and Session 2 of Day 2.
The book
Comments
I think it's a very good move by the cold-war stalwarts. I really like a nuclear-free world. Not only America and Russia all other nuclear powers should also be included in the process! If world could agree for a nuclear-free world then our very world will be very peaceful, very safe. I think nuclear weapon alone can not guarantee the absolute security (considering all kind of security) of a country. Best example is 9/11 incidence.
To see how peaceful the world would be without nuclear weapons one only need to look at how "peaceful" it was before them. WWI & WWII spring to mind.
When Russia was weak, the U.S. cold-war stalwarts talked about a new World Order meaning one that will be under the absolute control of U.S. with all its nuclear missiles. But now when Russia has a few missiles that purportedly threaten the U.S., these persons revert to talks of "nuclear free" world. It appears to be nothing but a ploy by the military strategists of U.S.
I am afraid the [genie] is out of the bottle. It will not return to it. A Nuclear-Free World is as feasible as a Powder-Free World. Realistic objectives should be considered. Like i.e. to constraint the number of nuclear devices around the world to some target-level.
Sharma:
Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. I don’t think anyone in America has ever thought of Russia as “weak”. By the same token, I’m not sure anyone here thinks of Russia as being “strong” either. Russia is Russia; what is, is. However, one thing all Americans seem to agree on is that Russia isn’t an enemy. We certainly may have an adversarial relationship with Russia on many issues but we agree on many others. This is the new political reality between our two countries.
Frank Shuler
USA
Kolokol:
I completely agree with your conclusions, the genie is indeed out of the bottle. I wonder however how arm control agreements will fare in the future. After SORT (the Moscow Treaty), I’m pessimistic. What are your thoughts? Do you think a world-wide nuclear warhead treaty could be signed and have real meaning?
Frank Shuler
USA
A world-wide nuclear treaty? That is a pipe dream depending on the scope of the treaty. Nuclear weapons are the weaker countries great equalizer. Smaller countries will continue to attempt to obtain them as they try to gain a foothold in world power. We will never be able to hold them off forever. The more we do, the more they will try and when they succeed they will not tell us until too late. If Iran obtains an ICBM do you really think they would tell us?
Rich:
I’m always looking for historical precedence when discussing these matters and the 1921-22 Washington Naval Treaty comes to mind. The Great Powers gathered in Washington DC to regulate the number of dreadnought battleships and thus establish a new world order. For the first time in history, Great Britain agreed by treaty to limit her navy and reduce the Royal Navy to an equal size with the United States. Japan was allowed to only have three battleships to each five for Great Britain and the United States. Japan agreed but the resentment of being treated as a second-class nation undermined her honor and helped create the conditions that ultimately led to Pearl Harbor.
That’s why I’m pessimistic any arm control agreement with meaning is possible.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
I agree with you but there has been success in the current nuclear treaties. Worldwide, well that just won't happen. As for US/Russia agreements, we will have to see what comes out of the 2x2 meeting this spring....We still need to sort out the gap between the end of START I and SORT for inspection purposes. I know Bush gave in for a written treaty instead of unilateral reductions, but a 3 page document is really no way to determine adequate nuclear reductions.
In my opinion, while the withdrawal from the ABM treaty will possibly help US security, I believe that START II would have helped more. With the elimination of MIRVs in that treaty, more weaponry would have to be shifted to the sea and that has shown problems for Russia. And there have been several interviews done with Russian military leaders that if START II went into effect, they would have had a hard time even getting up to the maximum number let alone reducing to the number.
Rich:
While I agree on your opinion regarding START II, I think the process just took too long. The Duma sat on the treaty for years and by the time it was ratified, the US Senate wasn’t in the mood. Times had changed. Why would the United States treat the SS-18s to be eliminated under START II with so much indifference? Why would the US lose interest in limiting land-based ICBMs to single warheads? Why was the ABM System approved under President Clinton deemed more important than any START II agreement with Russia? The only logical conclusion I can reach is that the American geo-political policy makers no longer considered Russia an enemy. The “Cold War” was over. START II had just become an anachronism.
The American ABM system is aimed at different enemies.
Frank Shuler
USA
I fail to see the logic in the impression that U.S. does not consider Russia an enemy when countries even remotely capable of producing a nuclear weapon far into the future are being considered as enemies by U.S. There are also constant attempts by U.S. media to project Mr.Putin negatively when all he is doing is to ensure a minimal deterrance and freedom in Russia's decision making. There are no signs of U.S. easing on Russia.
"I fail to see the logic in the impression that U.S. does not consider Russia an enemy when countries even remotely capable of producing a nuclear weapon far into the future are being considered as enemies by U.S. "
Crazy as it may seem the US trusts Russia's leaders a WHOLE lot more than Iran's.
The previous posters all seem to be assuming that for nuclear ban to be effective all countries have to *willingly* join it. Obviously, this is impossible as most countries have nothing to gain from it. Still, the idea of nuclear-free World keeps being marketed from the US using various media outlets, including this site. Would they waste their time and funding on something so impossible? I think not. So why are they doing it?
One explanation would be is that one long-term goal of the US is to *force* worldwide nuclear ban. And they're just preparing the public opinion.
Pressuring countries like Russia and China to comply is no easy task, but building strategic ABM can be viewed as a step into this direction. What do you guys think?
> Still, the idea of nuclear-free World keeps being marketed from the US using various media outlets, including this site.
- Completely agreed.
But, this policy will surely fail with Russia and China.
- If US and NATO was unable to completely disarm the Russian Federation in the damned 90's, how these guys intended to get success now?
I too fully agree with Kolokol. The idea that nuclear weapons can somehow be totally eradicated is nothing short of unrealistic. Furthermore, I think this concept is a very serious problem in that it tends to radicalize any discourse along the lines of nuclear proliferation and subsequently draws attention away from more pragmatic goals, many of which are listed in the article.
> To see how peaceful the world would be without nuclear weapons one only need to look at how "peaceful" it was before them.
'Nuclear physicists have made a good turn to mankind: they have invented the weapon so terrible, that any war with use of this weapon, seems to be impossible'.
Leo Landau,
great Soviet physicist
Russian, the first step to nuclear disarmament of Russia (or China, for that matter) would be to render their nuclear arsenals useless for any practical purpose.
This I think is the main driver behind the US ABM program. I know it might never be 100% effecient, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. The goal isn't to prevent each and every Russian warhead from landing on US soil. The goal is to make it totally unreasonable for Russia to launch a nuclear strike in any possible scenario.
It might be a very long-term goal for the US, but by no means an unrealistic one. One day we might see that Cold War took longer.
> The goal is to make it totally unreasonable for Russia to launch a nuclear strike in any possible scenario.
- Yes, we understand it. But thank you anyway.
> It might be a very long-term goal for the US, but by no means an unrealistic one.
- US may have not enough time to complete this task; presently, it seems that USA following on the steps of Soviet Union, just repeating it's fate; please compare:
SU: (Invasion into Afghanistan -> Economical Crysis -> Perestroika -> Desintegration)
US: (Invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq -> First Signs of Economical Crysis -> ???)
All the Empires have common fate?
Just my opinion, just by intuition.
Sharma:
The United States is only concerned by threats and potential future threats. Russia today is not considered such. We certainly have an adversarial relationship with Russia on many key issues but there is no fear of Russia as was the case of the old Soviet Union during the “Cold War”. I think one of the basic reasons why the US Government doesn’t have this fear is the excellent government-to-government communications between our two countries. While issues may divide us; intentions on both sides are well understood. The US certainly has had an adversarial relationship with nuclear-armed France but no one here considers France “an enemy”. Russo-American politics seem to be heading to the same conclusion.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
While I don't seriously think any politicians consider Russia a threat, Robert Gates stated in his defense of the budget that one of the reasons we needed more funding was "In addition to fighting the Global War on Terror, we also face:.... The uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs"
Here is a link to the speech. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/testGates070509.pdf
While that doesn't sound like we consider Russia an enemy, there are several news articles in Russia that are angry about this statement. Here is just one:
http://news.rin.ru/eng/news///9879/9/6/
But as any politician he changes his tune 6 months later regarding the ABM issue: “The Cold War is over,” he said. “Russia is not our enemy. We’re building a new security relationship whose foundation does not rest on the prospect of mutual annihilation.”
Found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23cnd-missile.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Rich:
Have you ever heard of any US Secretary of Defense in history telling Congress we have no enemies? (grin)
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
I agree...but we need to choose our words wisely in the current information age. I don't think mentioning Russia was a wise choice. As an ally, it is like saying we are worried about the new military developments in Britain....
Rich
Rich:
Agreed. The phrase, “American Diplomacy” is an oxymoron at best.
Frank Shuler
USA