Tags: Iran | Russia

We Cannot Risk Obama's Nuclear Weapons Vision

By Wednesday, 06 May 2015 10:11 AM Current | Bio | Archive

When President Obama was a student at Columbia College he wrote a paper calling for the “end of nuclear weapons.” It was a time when there were similar calls for the elimination of these weapons of mass destruction; this was ostensibly an idealistic cri de coeur.

Unilateral disarmament of the kind this movement demanded was seen as playing directly into the hands of a Soviet rival expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

The emergence of a multipolar nuclear world has made the once idealistic claim seem polyannish. A unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces, without a reciprocal response from other nuclear powers, only weakens the deterrent effect of our arsenal.

Yet remarkably, in comments made before the 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York City, Secretary of State John Kerry stated U.S. “willingness” and “readiness” to engage and negotiate further reductions of deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third below the level set by the New START treaty.

While there has been suspicion of Russian cheating on the START accord and threatening gestures about the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine, President Obama is raising the specter of further dramatic retrenchment. Sen. McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, “further strategic nuclear reductions with Russia would be a dangerously naïve nonstarter with the U.S. Senate.”

In fact, nuclear weapons have grown increasingly prominent in Russian military doctrine as the growth in its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons would suggest.

At the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, the five announced nuclear weapon states recognized by the treaty — U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China — will discuss current approaches to nuclear arms control. It is instructive that North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, India and arguably Iran — all nuclear powers, possible nuclear powers or about to be nuclear powers – are omitted from the discussion.

In President Obama’s Nobel Prize speech, he reiterated his long standing belief in a world free of nuclear weapons. But despite these heartfelt sentiments the world is moving ever closer to proliferation, even among those nations that signed the nonproliferation treaty.

While the president asserts a “broad international consensus on the need to secure nuclear materials,” it is obvious that within the framework on Iran’s nuclear materials there isn’t any requirement that this state sponsor of terrorism accept international protocols.

Visionaries relying on their own illusions assume that cooperation is possible. But reality intrudes.

For Russia, its bristling nuclear arsenal affords comfort in any escalation scenario in Eastern Europe. Should NATO forces confront Russia, the threat of tactical nuclear weapons looms.

Rather than begin the upcoming nuclear security summit by stating our position, Secretary Kerry would be wise to put an emphasis on reinforcing the national deterrent. No sensible person wants nuclear exchanges. Unfortunately not everyone is sensible.

A world without nuclear weapons is and should be a goal, but suppose you disarm and your enemies do not? Russia, for example, has already said it will not participate in the preparatory process for the 2016 security summit.

An agreement of the willing is meaningless if the unwilling do not participate. In the nuclear age it is far better to be safe — behind the wall of defensive weapons — than sorry after a failed effort at a freeze.

The utopian vision, in this case, can easily emerge as a dystopian saga. President Obama leaves the impression that he is still a naïve Columbia student captivated by illusions. However, there isn’t anyone like him in Russia, China, or Iran.

Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute and author of the books "The Transformational Decade" (University Press of America) and "Decline and Revival in Higher Education" (Transaction Books). Read more reports from Herbert London — Click Here Now.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
An agreement of the willing is meaningless if the unwilling do not participate. In the nuclear age it is far better to be safe — behind the wall of defensive weapons — than sorry after a failed effort at a freeze.
Iran, Russia
Wednesday, 06 May 2015 10:11 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved