Russian President Vladimir Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine has killed at least tens of thousands of people, displaced millions from their homes, and disrupted countless lives around the world. Putin’s tacit threat to use nuclear weapons against those who interfere has sparked the fear of nuclear conflict in a way not seen since the end of the Cold War.
Now Putin is withdrawing from the final bilateral treaty capping the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States, the two largest in the world. This decision could open the door to an unbridled, volatile and dangerous global arms race involving Russia, the United States and China.
On February 21, Putin announced that Russia would “pause” the implementation of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). This limits both sides to fielding her 1,550 warheads and her 700 missiles and bombers. Shortly after Mr. Biden took office, the two countries agreed that it would be in their interests to extend the New START for another five years until 2026.
A “suspension” would at least mean that Russia would not make semi-annual warhead deployment declarations or allow mutual field spot checks at missile and bomber sites as required under the treaty. I mean Suspension of these inspections and data exchanges is not permitted under the Convention. Russia, meanwhile, is outlining changing and vague terms for lifting the moratorium and resuming disarmament talks with the US. Conditions for resuming comprehensive operation of the Convention. The US State Department said she responded in detail to Russia’s complaints about New START operations on February 27.
Importantly, however, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that Russia will comply with the central limit set by the treaty (1,550 strategic ballistic missiles with strategic warheads and no more than 700 bombers). .
Putin’s announcement makes it far more likely that, for the first time since 1972, there will be no US-Russia agreement limiting strategic nuclear weapons after the New START expires in 2026.
Without such constraints, Russia (and the US) could double their deployed strategic warheads to more than 3,000 within a few years by uploading additional warheads to their land- and sea-based missiles. . In the long run, the loss of transparency, the worst-case analysis on both sides, plus the added complication that China is already building up its arsenal, could lead to a pointless and destabilizing tripartite nuclear arms race. can cause
The Biden administration has responded with caution and restraint. The president described Putin’s decision as a “huge mistake”. Already in August of last year, his administration announced that it was “ready to rapidly negotiate a new arms control framework to replace his new START, which expires in 2026.” After Putin’s announcement, Secretary of State Anthony Brinken reaffirmed that the United States “is ready to talk to Russia about limiting strategic weapons at any time, regardless of what is happening in the world or in our bilateral relations.” .
Despite the headwinds, there is still time and opportunity to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. With sensible U.S. leadership and international pressure, at least until both governments are able to finish negotiations on the new strategy, a formal U.S.-Russian agreement that both sides will respect the core limits set by the New START can be reached. It may be possible to secure , bilateral nuclear arms control framework. Of course, such a framework must consider each side’s long-range, medium-range, and short-range (aka tactical) nuclear weapons and their missile defense capabilities.
It is encouraging that many members of parliament support such an approach. Others, however, urge the United States to withdraw from the New START, prepare to scale up the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and develop new types of nuclear weapons, such as the proposed nuclear armament, sea-launch, and land-attack cruises. I am already asking for it. missile. Some outside commentators have called for the US to withdraw from New START before Russia does.
The US withdrawal from New START will neither make the US more secure nor create leverage over Russia. Instead, it lends credence to Russia’s disinformation campaign about who is responsible for the collapse of nuclear arms control, further escalating tensions. Should the US (and Russia) break New START restrictions, China will undoubtedly accelerate its own nuclear buildup beyond its current stockpile of about 400 warheads to maintain its nuclear retaliation capability. .
As there are no winners in a costly nuclear arms race, those across the political spectrum, including the scientific community, are pushing back against the threat of use of nuclear weapons by Russia and other nuclear-weapon states and resuming disarmament diplomacy. An extensive network of civil society organizations, including the Coalition of Physicists for Nuclear Threat Reduction, of which we are members, is already committed to this effort.
Non-nuclear-weapon states, regardless of Russia’s position on the war against Ukraine, have an opportunity to seek agreement to new negotiations to ensure that the Kremlin adheres to the New START and that both Russia and the United States meet their nuclear disarmament responsibilities. You can get Ideally much lower – her two largest nuclear weapons limits in the world. These countries can also persuade China, France and the UK to agree to refrain from building up their arsenals.
The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the nuclear-weapon states to “negotiate in good faith on effective measures related to an early end to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.” Russia and the United States possess about 90% of the world’s approximately 10,000 nuclear warheads, and have a special responsibility and mutual interest to curb and reduce their deadly arsenal.
A world without effective nuclear arms control and disarmament would be far more dangerous and unstable. Now is the time to defend nuclear reductions since the end of the Cold War and push for further reductions.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily Scientific American.
