I'm just wondering exactly what people thought was going to happen to the Ex-Soviet Nuclear Arsenal? The United States is already spending
Billions to secure surplus fissile material in the Former Soviet Union (the Nunn-Lugar program). I'm a big fan of Nunn-Lugar, and I believe that preventing the loss of fissile material and surplus warheads is one of the most important aspects of the Russian/American relationship. But don't kid yourself. The Russians were going to pull these warheads out of service. The deterioration of the Russian Command Control and Comunication system of the Strategic Rocket Forces is very real. Maintaning these forces is too great a burdon on the Russian military. Warheads that are not attached to Balistic missiles can not be accidentally launched at a target due to faulty CCC. The "accidental war" scenario has been one of our highest priorities since the end of the cold war. By getting the warheads in storage, we can help to prevent just such a failure. Would it be better to destroy these weapons? Of course it would. Are both sides ready to pay the money to destroy these warheads AND their fissile materials? No, not at this time.
While this treaty does not address non-proliferation,
Joint Declaration on the New Strategic Relationship does mention Non-proliferation. This statement is part of the agreement, and was signed by both parties. As I mentioned before, the Russians have to take these warheads offline. The world is safer because we are working together to keep them secured. If not for US assistance and participation, the Russian "strategic Surplus" (which I believe these warheads will be a part of) would be much more susseptable to theft.
All the provisions of START are still in place. We are still reducing our arsenals according to the START treaties. This new treaty is not perfect, but it is a good treaty in my opinion.
-Sikboy
