Bookmark www.milnet.com     Contact milnet@milnet.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov put together details of a new nuclear arms reduction treaty to be signed by U.S. President Bush and Russian President Vladmir Putin at the summit on May 22.  What really does it mean?  It's an improvement.  That's about it.

63.3% Reduction is Better than None?

The first step to acceptance of progress is to understand the significance of each step.  The Start treaties required the signatories to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles down to a number around 6000.  The new treaty the U.S. and Russia are about to sign reduces the number further.  Down to 2200 to be exact.

Of course peace-niks will point out that 2200 warheads would still pretty much end it all if they all were delivered.  And there are enough nuclear subs and missile silos left in both countries to make that happen.  So what's the point?

"It is progress" cheer arms negotiators.  The media yawns, makes the report and returns to more juicy subject matter.  Like Clinton's love child, urine soaked floors of the Church of Nativity or maybe a new tidbit about Robert Blake's trail.  The significance, you see, escapes even the liberal press.

Why?  It is more than just a matter of numbers.  If Suddam Hussein had 2200 nuclear weapons, wouldn't the U.S. pause a little in its slow but steady progress towards war with Iraq?  You betcha.  The U.S. is out to make sure Saddam doesn't even have ONE!  It's not the numbers precisely, it's the political effect.  The U.S. and Russia are going to REDUCE to 2200 warheads.  Oh my God!  And oh by the way, that only includes strategic warheads, and says absolutely nothing about tactical nukes which sit in a different category, unless, of course, Bolton and Mamedov wrote in some new rules to the missile accords.

In any case, a political statement of immense proportion is being said here.  "We are reducing to 2200 warheads you wanna' be nuclear nations, so get a clue!"  Of course, only two nuclear weapons have ever been dropped.  And that was over half a century ago.  There might have been an underwater nuke torpedo used, but that is cold war folklore. The point here is that 2200 warheads is 2200 pieces of B.S.  You can't use them, they cost a fortune to guard and maintain.  And no matter what, if you more than none, then you have to have at least a few hundred or more.  One makes you dangerous, more than a few hundred make you "a power".

That's nuclear politics.  "We have plenty and we will use them."  Right.  Of course, every once in a while a leader will trot out the possibilities.  Like someone in the Bush Administration,  "Can we use them as bunker busters?"  or "How about for missile defense?"  The very question will get peace-niks up and running for the picket sign section of their local anti-government signage department.  They obviously don't understand the politics of nuclear weapons today, anymore than they did 40 years ago.

You see, its not discussing how to use them, storing them or building them that is dangerous.  It's just plain having them or of course using them.  If you have one, that's too many.  If you have none, that's not enough.  2200?  Well that's a little overkill, but it's better than none and a damned site better than 6000.  That's progress.  Beats none all to hell, and its a few hundred, you bet.

Real progress is when we don't need them at all.  Good luck on that one. By the way, anyone know the number for Chinese nuclear weapons?  Doesn't that figure into the equation?  If Russia and the U.S. go below the Chinese number, won't that imply some sort of numerical stupidity?  After all, Russia and U.S. are on much better terms with each other than they are with China, right?  According to the High Energy Archive,  the Chinese number rests between 140 and 290 depending on the ratio of bombers with actual weapons to carry.  See, a couple of hundred.  China knows the political formula.  As does the U.K. and France.

So, to summarize, Russia and the U.S. are making progress.  What's it all mean.  Not much.  Does it change the realistic or political landscape?  Nope, not much.  But it is progress!

For more detailed information than you can read in an hour, consult the Carry Sublette Nuclear Weapons FAQ.

© Copyright, 2002, Michael Crawford, MILNET

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

distributed worldwide by AFI Research afi@supanet.com