The year was 1996 and I was in the process of learning the ropes at my new job at United States Strategic Command, the keeper of the nation’s strategic nuclear triad (submarines, bombers, and land based ballistic missiles). One day I ran into an acquaintance in the hall that I hadn’t seen for a number of years. He was in town for a conference my new command was hosting. We started doing the catch up thing and he told me he had just returned from Russia. Curious, I asked him why in heavens name he had been in Russia. He replied that he had been part of a Start verification team. Since he spoke Russian, he had been asked to participate in the verification program several times.
I was surprised and didn’t want to appear brain dead stupid so steered the conversation in other directions. I had been involved in the first Gulf War and my follow on job had been on the staff of United States Central Command’s naval component. As a result, most of my focus in the preceding 6 years had been on Iraq. I knew the U.S. and Russia had signed the Start Treaty but hadn’t given it much thought and when I did had questioned how effective it would be. As I got up to speed for my new job, I learned that both the U.S. and Russia were actually abiding by the Start Treaty and reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles. This combined with, as mentioned in an earlier blog, the sight of Russian Generals being escorted around the command gave me hope that just maybe, at least for nuclear weapons, some disarmament was possible.
The original Start Treaty was signed in 1991 by the first President Bush and then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev and as stated in a March American Forces Press Service by John J. Kruzel was “the biggest arms reduction treaty ever brokered…Under that agreement, Russia more than halved its nuclear arsenal, destroying more than 3,000 intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 45 atomic submarines and more that 65 strategic bombers…The United States also reduced by more than 3,000 its arsenal of intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles, and cut the numbers of its launchers and heavy bombers.”
The treaty limited each side’s nuclear arsenal to no more than 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles. According to a March 25, 2010 report in the New York Times, the U.S. “currently has 2,100 deployed strategic warheads and Russia 2,600”. The treaty had expired in December but as part of the verification process the United States conducted over 600 inspections in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian, and Ukraine. Russia conducted over 400 inspections in the U.S.
Under the new Start Treaty signed by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev, each side will be limited to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 800 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. Out of that 800 no more than 700 can be deployed. Deployed is military speak for being out and about and ready to fire weapons. The treaty only covers launchers for long range nuclear weapons. Stored Strategic nuclear warheads and tactical nuclear weapons are not covered in the treaty. Various reports estimate the U.S. has between 150-200 tactical nuclear weapons spread about in several NATO countries while the Russians have about 2.000.
I think President Obama and his security team has done a good job building on work begun in previous administrations. I’m not in favor of total disarmament but as a Cold War Vet I know what its like to be in an environment where much of the known world could be destroyed at any point in time. The Cold War went on for so long the public for the most part was unaware of how potentially dangerous the situation was and what could have happened if it had gone hot. I don’t know how many nukes it would take to destroy the world but do know 1400 deployed launchers with nuclear weapons on board ready to launch at any time is still a fairly sobering thought.
Our relationship with Russia is not perfect but the likelihood of nuclear war with that nation is unlikely unless there’s a drastic change in our two nation’s relationship. I’m watching Russia’s resurgence as it attempts to end Western influence in areas of the former Soviet Union, with interest.
I’m still thinking about the ramifications of the new Treaty but there is one thing I don’t agree with. As I understand it, if the U.S. decides to put a conventional warhead on an ICBM or SLBM (land launched or submarine launched ballistic missile) it will count against our 1,550 warhead limit. I’m not comfortable with anything that limits our conventional weapon capability. Case in point in December 1998, Saddam threw out the UN weapons inspectors. In response we launched Operation Desert Fox. On just the first day of the conflict something like 280 cruise missiles were used a total that almost equaled that used in the entire first Gulf War. Who is to say how many conventional weapons would be needed in future threat scenarios? I certainly would not want to be limited in what I could or could not use. Again my thoughts are my own. It’s a nice day. Think I’ll go out and sit by the river with a good book.
