Some optimism on nuclear weapons
So last week presidents Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden had a phone call. But many say, so what? They are so wrong. A lot was there if you read between the lines. Importantly, they reaffirmed that the New START Treaty, cutting long-range nuclear-tipped missiles by one third, (that’s a lot, on its own), would now be renewed in a matter of days, a decision that President Donald Trump refused to take.
What else is afoot?
l Apparently the two did not discuss Ukraine much- merely the US reaffirming its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty- which suggests that at last neither side is planning to significantly raise the temperature, even though Biden appears to want to continue Trump’s recent policy of providing lethal weapons to the government.
l Neither, apparently, did they discuss Syria although later the State Department did put out an anodyne statement saying the US was committed to “help shape a political settlement”. Now that dictator Bashar al-Assad has effectively won the civil war with Russian military help Syria is no longer a big dividing issue.
All this suggests that neither Putin nor Biden have any desire to be provocative. (Although they do have a long-running dispute over one issue- the construction of the North Stream 2 pipeline that will bring oil and gas from Russia to western Europe.)
This should mean that now could not be a better time to get down to some of the nitty-gritty that needs to be worked on to lower the number of nuclear armaments. Both sides have committed themselves to fast progress by signing up to resolutions passed by the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
What needs to be done? First and foremost is to continue where New START leaves off. Further dismantlement of the still large stockpiles of long-range, city-blasting, nuclear missiles is the imperative.
If the present Senate refuses to block a new agreement then the Administration could do what it did with SALT 2- obey its rules anyway and persuade Moscow to do the same.
Some argue that nuclear weapons give strategic stability, what others call MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction. Maybe they do-but at a cost, not just financial but at great risk. The number of near misses because of false radar signals and the discovery of misinformed, undisciplined or intoxicated silo officers have been many. (The locks on US rockets were discovered to the White House’s surprise to have codes of 00000 to avoid memory lapses and thus to make firing quicker.) Then there is the chance of a truly mad president pressing the button. (If there was a Trump 2 there would be a danger of that.) On the Russian side there is no reason to think that things are that much different.
Not least is the moral question. A few theologians have tried to argue that if these weapons keep the peace they are the least bad option. But others, including thinkers from the pope to the mullahs of Iran, have argued that such destructive weapons go against God’s (Allah’s) teaching and could never be used.
A second should be to return to the treaty that banned medium-range weapons fired from land (meant for use inside Europe)- the so-called Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Trump said he abrogated the treaty because of Russian cheating. In part it was also because the Pentagon wanted to be free to match China’s unchecked build up of such weapons. On November 17, last year, the US successfully test launched a new missile, the SM-3, capable of intercepting Russian missiles. While it was being developed the US said that it was only meant to protect its battleships. Later, under President Obama, the White House said it was to protect Europe from Iranian missiles (which Iran doesn’t have and seems to have no operable plans to implement). In truth, as the Kremlin kept insisting, they could easily be “tweaked” to protect Europe and the United States from Russia. Now with the successful SM-3 launch Russia and China are on the back foot. These interceptors can be placed on ships which can manoeuvre wherever they want. They will also be placed in Romania and Poland. (The system is now called Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence.)
This successful test heralds a big shift in the balance of power. Balance the Russians argue is the essence of peace. If one adds up all the abrogations made by Trump plus Aegis, plus his refusal to renew new START, it’s difficult to argue that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia in order to defend its interests. Yet some influential Americans still say this.
There are enough difficulties without creating fantasies. It’s the time to get serious about nuclear disarmament in all its facets and locations. One hopes that Biden realizes this and gets to work on them while the ink is still dry on the signing of the renewal of New START.
