Behind the Scenes of the Russian Nuclear Policy

Discussing the role of nuclear weapons in global politics and maintaining Russia’s security at the International Summer School on Global Security in the beginning of July in Abramtsevo, Russia, Eugene Miasnikov, Director of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, presented the analysis of the trends in the development of strategic forces of Russia, which can help understand why Russian senior officials reacted so coldly to the US President Obama’s suggestion of further reductions in the nuclear arsenals.   

Miasnikov notes that the Russian view of the role of nuclear weapons is essentially conservative. Though some believe that nuclear weapons have lost their significance and that nuclear deterrence is not more than just a myth, in practice these ideas do not really affect the state nuclear policy. Miasnikov points out, that unlike the USA, the discussion of the role of nuclear weapons among the Russian expert community oftentimes takes place behind the scene, and it is difficult to say in what way it affects the official policy of the Russian Federation.   

In general there is a consensus among Russian experts, Miasnikov says, that the nuclear weapon is (i) the key element of strategic deterrence system; (ii) a guarantor of the Russian national security from an extensive aggression of another state or a group of states; (iii) a guarantor of sovereignty; (iv) an agency that ensures Russia’s high status among other states; in the nuclear area, equal to the one of the USA.

The views of Russian experts differ mainly in regard to the way Russia should respond to the US suggestions for further bilateral cutting of nuclear arsenals.  The views differ, Miasnikov explains, because specialists differentially assess threats and dangers for the Russian Federation as well as prospects of the Russian economy.

The CTBT and the US

This week, the CTBTO is holding a weeklong conference on the CTBTO and the progress being made to ratify the CTBT.  Simultaneously, there is an education program being held both in Geneva and online.  I am one of the participants, and already I have learned so much about the CTBTO and the delegation processes. Part of the course is a simulation of the Executive Council Deliberations over an On-site Inspection Request.  I was selected to be a part of the representative team for Columbia. 

The CTBT is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 10, 1996, but it has not entered into force because eight Annex-2 states have not ratified the treaty.  They are the United States, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, China, and Iran.

Once the CTBT is ratified and becomes part of international law, the UN will be able to monitor the world.  If a state violates the CTBT the executive council has been set up for a democratic process to order on site inspections. 

It is the interest of the United States to ratify the CTBT because the United States has already ceased nuclear testing.  The US now uses computers to run calculations and virtual tests that are just as effective as actual tests.  If the US took a leading role in getting the rest of the other states to ratify the treaty, the risk of other states gaining nuclear weapons would be eliminated almost entirely.  The United States also has even more reason to ratify the CTBT since Russia has already done so.  Russia has the second most nuclear weapons in the world.  Russia tested the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated called the Tsar Bomba in 1961. 

This is the most supported nuclear treaty in the world.  The US and others continue to obstruct it.  The US needs to begin working with the international community instead of opposing it.  For the rest of the week, I will be learning more about how the CTBT is practically carried out.  I will also be taking part in the Executive Council simulation.  I hope to learn a lot this week.  Around a hundred other participants from around the world will be joining me.  Perhaps through education and awareness, support can spread for this important treaty.

Science and Religion Reconciliation Center is opening on the basis of Russian Federal Nuclear Center – Seriously?

‘Wait a minute. That can’t be serious, can it?’ immediately popped up in my head when I was reading the following news: 

As the Moscow Patriarchate website reports, on 29 June 2013 the orthodox clergy, representatives of the Department of Economic Development, Department of Agriculture, the administration of the city Sarov, as well as RFNC representatives discussed the opening of a Science and Religion Reconciliation Center (Russian: научно-духовный центр) which will be based on Russian Federal Nuclear Center and the Monastery of the Holy Dormition of Sarov hermitage. The Center, which has received the blessing of Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' Kirill, will host conferences and other events aimed to build up the dialogue between representatives of science and the Church.

The question arises how are they going to find common grounds to achieve understanding and build friendly relations? Can the views of Nuclear Center,* which developed the first Soviet atomic and H-bombs, and the Church be compatible with one another? What can the Institute that has developed weapons of mass destruction and is working towards their higher performance possibly have anything to do with the Church that is supposed to advocate common values and teach people to appreciate and protect life and the world bestowed on us by God?

For me the idea of a Science and Religion Reconciliation Center is as oxymoronic as the world peace keeping function of nuclear weapons. Let us think about it. If the Church was intending to appeal to the conscious of nuclear scientists, it would probably support organizations fighting for the abolition of nuclear weapons rather than initiate discussions how to reconcile religion and science. As for the funding, why is federal money being spent on the opening of the Center instead of helping out anti-nuclear campaigns?

Maybe I am too skeptical and the Church will indeed help to promote the idea that science should work for the good of humanity and not jeopardize it with such deadly inventions as nuclear weapons. Maybe it will. But the Moscow Patriarchate is ambiguous about the direction in which the further talks will be going. Will the Church try to persuade the Nuclear Center specialists that their work is unethical, immoral, and antihuman? Or will the nuclear experts be able to prove their view to the Church that nuclear weapons serve the only ‘honorable’ purpose of maintaining peace and security for the Russian people and the whole world thus getting the approval of the Church? It is difficult to say based on what information about the new Center’s work is available. We will find out in November when the first conference is scheduled to take place at the Center.

*Russian Federal Nuclear Center - The All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics (RFNC - VNIIEF) - is a Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) of the State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom”. The Institute was founded in 1946 to implement the Soviet Atomic Project. Now the Institute is intensively working towards higher nuclear weapons performance, improving their efficiency, safety and reliability.

More information about the Institute and its work can be found at http://www.vniief.ru/wps/wcm/connect/vniief/siteeng/nuclearcentre/

Ekaterina Kuzmina is a graduate student at California State University, Fullerton  and an intern at NAPF. 

Why Current Deterrence Theory is Wrong

The main argument given against the idea of nuclear abolition is that the “genie is out of the bottle,” and the only thing that keeps more countries from getting nuclear weapons is threatening them with nuclear weapons.  However, Iran and North Korea stand as stark evidence that this is simply not true.  Nation-states will develop nuclear weapons in response to being threatened by nuclear weapons.  In an age where the nuclear armed states can invade any non-nuclear country without drastic consequences, threatened states see that in this mindset, it only makes sense to arm oneself.  The US was able to invade Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  I would argue the only reason why the US hasn’t invaded Iran is because Russia and China have threatened retaliation.  Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80s.  China took over Tibet.  The message the nuclear powers have been sending the rest of the world over the last 50 years is that if you do something we don’t like, and you don’t have a nuclear arsenal, then we can invade you.  Therefore, the logical conclusion is that in reality deterrence leads to proliferation because it creates a mindset in which nuclear weapons are the source of power and therefore necessary.  This is disastrous in an age where terrorists are no longer bound by national barriers.  It is dangerous in a world that is currently fraught with instability and popular unrest.  

Currently, President Obama and President Putin have agreed to lower their arsenals by a third more.  While this looks like a step in the right direction, it is not really progress.  Let me tell you why.  Both Russia and the US are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  They are spending billions of dollars on making the nuclear weapons more deadly (as if blowing up an entire city-sized area isn’t deadly enough), more difficult to shoot down with missiles, and faster (missiles that can hit a target in 4 minutes rather than ten).  So really while they lower the number of overall warheads, all they are really doing is retiring the old warheads and actually creating a new stockpile of deadlier ones.  I must ask why the US needs to spend billions of dollars on making the deadliest weapons in human history deadlier.  It is almost laughable.  I mean how accurate does a nuclear missile need to be?  If you get within a mile of your target you will still vaporize it.

For example, the old WWII nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 80 times weaker than our smallest nuclear warhead now.  Our smallest nuclear warhead completely annihilates a 1.7 mile radius around the detonation spot.  Most buildings and all living things in this area are wiped out instantly.  They get off lucky.  Then within a 2.7 mile radius from the blast (or 1 mile outside of the instant death area) all buildings except for steel structure are gone, fifty percent of living things are instantly killed, the other  fifty percent is mortally burned or wounded and will die within the coming minutes, hours, or days after the blast.  At a 4.7 mile radius from the blast center (or 2 miles outside of the last damage radius), all houses are destroyed by the blast wave, an estimated five percent of the population is instantly killed, forty-five percent are injured, all have been exposed to toxic levels of radiation.  They will most likely die slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning.  At a 7.4 mile radius (or roughly 3 miles from the last damage radius) there is still blast damage but only twenty-five percent of the population is injured.  After this point there is less damage from the blast itself, however every living thing within thirty miles from the blast center has been exposed to lethal doses of radiation.  They will die within days, and that area will be uninhabitable for ten years.  Within ninety miles, all living persons will die of radiation poisoning, also within days.  Within 160 miles, people will show symptoms of radiation poisoning: hair loss, white blood loss, nerve damage.  The elderly, the young, and the sick will die.  Finally within 250 miles from the blast center, radiation poisoning will occur, though most will live.  Also, the land will be safe to inhabit within three years.  This is the effect of both the US and Russia’s smallest nuclear warhead.  In another report, this time on a terrorist nuclear attack on New York City estimates that there would be 800,000 people killed, and 900,000 people injured.  Those are the effects of the smallest warheads.  If anything bigger is used the results are dramatically worse.  The fact remains if ever a nuclear attack were to occur on any city the results would be horrifying.  While deterrence may have prevented a nuclear attack from another country, no amount of nuclear weapons can prevent a terrorist from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

How do you prevent a terrorist from getting a nuclear warhead?  Well one way is to keep nuclear weapons in secure facilities.  However, countries like Pakistan and India have questionable security, and the US can’t regulate their security.  Also, in Pakistan’s case, if government rule was to break down, nothing would stop terrorist groups from gaining access to those weapons.  However, if the nuclear powers come to an agreement to set a date for virtual disarmament, boost the power of the IAEA to regularly inspect and regulate nuclear programs in all countries, and agree to support the enforcement of the agreement through UN military force and sanctions then the disarmament could be permanent. This is quite a lot to ask from most of the nuclear powers.  However, I believe that security from nuclear attack should trump sovereignty in this instance.  If there is no enforcement, then there is no punishment for failing to make good on disarmament.  Once countries disarm, it would be very easy to make sure no country starts arming again because creating weapon’s grade plutonium is a lengthy, expensive, and fairly obvious endeavor.  Think about it; no terrorist organization has been able to make one because doing so requires building huge facilities and employing experts who are under surveillance.  Even North Korea, the most secretive country in the world, didn’t keep their nuclear weapons development a secret.  As long as the IAEA and various intelligence agencies do their jobs, no country could get away with making a nuclear weapon. 

So why is it likely that this idea won’t come to fruition?  First of all, the belief in nuclear deterrence is accepted as fact by both parties in Washington and Moscow.  Second, there is still little trust for the Russians in Washington DC.  The good news is that Russia is not our enemy anymore, and this mentality could be changed through effort.  For some reason, many politicians in America and Europe still see Russia as a country to fear instead of work with.  The truth is the moment America takes off its Cold War goggles and views Russia in a new way is the moment in which nuclear disarmament talks will actually bear fruit.  If the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals and worst nuclear track records start transparently and honestly disarming, is when the rest of the world will see that a commitment to a nuclear-free world is actually possible.  Current deterrence ideology has failed.  However, I believe that if the world is transparently disarmed and then honestly regulated, nuclear weapons development can be deterred.

Sources:

Nuclear affects estimations come from: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/nuclear/

New York City scenario: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml

Brooks Troiani is an intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

President Obama in Berlin: "So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.”

President Barack Obama at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate

Today, in front of the historic Brandenburg Gate, US President Barack Obama stood where Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy before him also stood.  He uttered the words now made famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” to a cheering crowd waving German and American flags together.  President Obama addressed the issue of nuclear weapons and proliferation in his speech.  Perhaps more importantly, Obama said, “We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.”  While most likely rhetoric, Mr. Obama was correct when he said this; for as long as weapons exist that can take out entire cities and regions, no country or people are safe if war breaks out. 

President Obama championed the New START Treaty in his speech saying, “I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.”  However, unless Mr. Obama has had some great change of heart, his actions during his Presidency regarding nuclear weapons have yet to meet the expectations laid out in his grandiose speeches.  The New START Treaty is made to sound ambitious and groundbreaking, it is however very conservative in its changes and unimaginative.  The new treaty sets the deployed weapon limit at 1550 warheads for each country.  The estimate of the US stockpile is estimated at 4,650 warheads, of which around 2,150 are deployed.  Russian nuclear stockpile is estimated at 4,500 weapons.  Only 1,800 of those warheads are deployed.  So the limit of 1550 really isn’t that drastic of a change.

International Law, the NPT, and The Nuclear Black Market

Unfortunately, nuclear existence has adapted seemingly well to the chaos of our society; with the break-up of the Soviet Union, nations witnessed the birth of the nuclear black market- selling nuclear capable materials, ranging from low enriched uranium to nuclear triggers. Now, amiss recent US- led Summit talks revolving around nuclear security, nuclear terrorism has surfaced as an absolute threat to all countries.  Where do these rogue rebels and militants acquire their materials?  The black market of course…where anything and everything can be found at cheap rates.  Due to the large stockpiles of nuclear materials in Russia, a lot of the smuggling and trading of nuclear-materials can be found in this country and in/around the Baltic region states. 

            Nuclear terrorism, “the illegal use or threat of use of radioactive materials” spawned like a contagion due to the easy access to the nuclear black market.  Small and moderate homemade bombs are going off daily at the hands of rebel insurgents across the globe: from bombings in the Middle East to large-scale attempts in Russia by the Chechen rebels from the volatile Russian Caucasus.  Hence the hasty attempt by leading countries, both nuclear and non, to strengthen securities against this growing enterprise through centers focusing on training country security forces to detect and take action against unwarranted attack arising from this illegal practice.  If we do not significantly curb the selling of nuclear materials in the black market, which then facilitates nuclear terrorism, the likelihood of large-scale nuclear-weaponry in rogue hands will transpire. 

The Iranian Conundrum In Nuclear Disarmament

In his usual blunt diplomacy, Russian President, Vladimir Putin warned Israel not to jump into immediate action against Iran, citing precedence to Iraq and Afghanistan; as he said, “to do something without knowing the final consequence is not that smart.”  This came during his visit to Israel last week, and after repeated threatening remarks by Israeli leadership to take military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear enrichment.

Would an attack on Iran delay a nuclear program?

Downsides of threatening Iran: Iran is rooted in nationalism, therefore, to threaten it would potentially take away from its own citizenry defying nuclear enrichment, and instead the country would come together to thwart off an outside attack.  Right now, it is imperative for Iranian citizens to initiate a collective stance against the enrichment program.  If the people of Iran gain an influential voice against this and if internal legitimacy is compromised in this aspect, Iran will be left with little options but to cooperate with both its people and the international community on its nuclear facilities.  Ofcourse, this isn’t a roadmap to what will happen, but it can remain a hopeful option. 

Distorted Prestige in the Nuclear World

Its stamina in global politics is uncanny.  It has sustained decades of assassination attempts through treaties and agreements- phasing in and out of the spotlight- discontentedly subdued for short periods, but relentlessly surfacing back as a domineering danger to stability even amid repeated policies of averting an international order based on its threats and counter threats. Nuclear weapons are an invulnerable emblem of prestige.  Consequently, they attract various states.  However, not all states have built their regimes on nuclear power.  Latin America, for instance, has consolidated to almost completion its non-proliferation agenda through the 1967 (and its amended parts) Tlatelolco Treaty- a quintessential legal example of the spirit and integrity of global denuclearization efforts, and although other regions should follow Latin America in directing more efforts toward the end of nuclear proliferation, this has yet to be taken seriously.

Why?

The Legal Issues of Nuclear Weapons

          Rule one of Customary International Humanitarian Law (March 2005) quotes: “The parties to conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants.”  A few rules down, rule twelve, declares that indiscriminate attacks are intolerable: prohibited.  Because most international law is the product of treaties, naturally cavities remain.  These cavities create dangerous ambiguity in how entities engage one another during armed conflict.  To curb this, customary international humanitarian law is in place as a set of 161 rules, implied and accepted as law by all recognized nations-states.  The rules as demonstrated above, predominantly focus on the protection of civilians and combatants during international and non-international armed conflict.

As we all should recognize, nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between personnel; they cannot be controlled after firing. This was/is the primary reason for conventions against the use of chemical weapons and cluster munitions.  The importance of customary international law is its potential to deter and mitigate the catastrophic implications that nuclear weapons present. If they cannot be effective in nuclear disarmament, then customary international law has failed its purpose.  However, when we open up the newspaper and flip to a page that discusses nuclear contentions, there is hardly if any serious discourse on the legal ramifications that nuclear weapons present.

Noble Pursuits

Normally, I spend the last day of the month putting together our monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower. Today, though, I just had to take a few minutes to write this blog, because I can't stop thinking about this quote.

Earlier this month, just before ending his term as President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev spoke to a group of Russian elites. He said that good examples needed to be set for the next generation so they would be emboldened to pursue "success in literature, art, education..."

Great! Wow, Mr. Medvedev. Your dedication to the future of Russia's youth is laudable. Literature, art and education have been undervalued in the past, and are keys to a vibrant culture.

Unfortunately, Mr. Medvedev didn't turn off the microphone and leave the room at that point. He continued:

"...and nuclear weapons."

New START is a Needed Re-Start

The New START agreement, signed by US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev, is not a major leap forward toward nuclear disarmament.  Its goals are far more modest than needed, but they are still crucial.  For the Senate to turn down ratification of the treaty would be a disaster for the country and the world, opening the door to new arms races and to new justifications for nuclear proliferation.

The treaty will reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads on each side to 1,550 and the number of deployed delivery vehicles to 700 for each country.  The treaty will also provide for verification procedures to assure compliance.  Since the expiration of the START I agreement in December 2009, there has been no agreement on verification procedures between the two countries.

Testing a Fragile Relationship

This is a big week for nuclear weapon issues in the United States. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to give its take on the New START agreement with Russia a mere five months after the agreement was signed. Also, the US military has scheduled a test launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands for Wednesday morning.

For months now Republican senators and pundits have flooded the op-ed pages with warnings of the "bad deal" that is the New START agreement. "We're giving up everything while Russia gives up nothing," they say.

Now let's imagine that on Wednesday morning, instead of the US shooting off one of its ICBMs, it's the Russians doing it.

Another Reason to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Links between nuclear security and climate change demonstrated by wildfires in Russia

by Rob van Riet*

From massive landslides caused by torrential rain in China, to unprecedented floods affecting over 14 million people (and counting) in Pakistan, to rampant wildfires spreading through parts of Russia; the Northern hemisphere has been experiencing some extreme weather conditions this summer. Although one should be careful in proving (or disproving) climate change by pointing to such incidents, these episodes give a taste of some of the expected effects of global warming.

A concern that has been growing in my mind for some time is how nuclear security fits into this increasingly unstable picture (all three abovementioned countries have nuclear arsenals).

The wildfires that have been besieging Russia for over two weeks now have deepened this worry. With western and central parts of Russia suffering the worst heat wave since records began 130 years ago, wildfires have been ravaging the countryside. They have destroyed more than a third of cultivable land, claimed over 50 lives, clouded Moscow in smoke and damaged several military sites. Another threat surfaced last week when blazes were on their way to engulfing key nuclear sites.

Dear Mitt Romney, Please Learn How to Properly Structure an Argument

Three weeks ago, Mitt Romney penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Obama's Worst Foreign-Policy Mistake," chock full of misleading information and outright lies about New START.  His op-ed prompted a flurry of repudiation from across both aisles (Sen. Lugar, Sen. Kerry, Steven Pifer); even staunch anti-STARTer Senator Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) letter of response wasn't that supportive.  Kyl's article was more of an angry rant against Obama than a well-articulated claim that Romney's assertions were correct.

Scores of experts were called before various Congressional committees, and they all refuted every one of Romney's arguments: missile defense, rail-mobile missiles, ICBM-silo conversion, data sharing, and verification.

Anyway, that brings us to today.  Romney has responded to Senators, officials, and experts with a brand new op-ed in the National Review, in which he attempts to save face by re-iterating "Eight Problems with New START."  I say that Romney attempted to save face, because, well...when it comes down to it, he pretty much fails at any real argumentation skills.  Let me lay it out for you, Mitty.

Most academics go by Toumlin's Model of Argumentation, which stipulates that there are six--count 'em six--components of an argument: Claim, Qualifier, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal.

New START Op-Ed Roundup!

This week saw a slew of op-eds about New START. It began when The Washington Post published former MA governor Mitt Romney’s op-ed on Tuesday, June 6th. Not only did Romney toe the conservative line regarding the ratification of New START, but he also concocted some new gems most Republicans don’t even use, such as the issue of placing ICBMs on bombers. On Wednesday, John Kerry wrote his own op-ed slamming Romney; Kerry even got in a personal dig, claiming Romney blatantly ignored the facts because he was in a “footrace to the right against Sarah Palin.” The same day, Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott, analysts from the Brookings Institution, also wrote op-eds for The Washington Post debunking Romney’s claims. Yesterday, Jon Kyl’s piece appeared in The Wall Street Journal. To nobody’s surprise, Kyl did not support New START, but his piece was considerably tamer than Romney’s.

Many bloggers have already written extensively about these op-eds, but here's a conciser version of what you need to know...links and highlights after the jump:

The New START Debate: Fact vs. Fiction

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held another hearing on the New START Treaty Thursday afternoon; it focused on the risks and benefits of the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia. Presenting witnesses included former U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Eric S. Edelman, and Director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society Institute, Dr. Morton H. Halperin.

There were no real surprises at the hearing; Joseph and Edelman reiterated the same anti-START talking points, namely verification, missile defense, and counting measures. Halperin provided the only pro-START testimony during this particular hearing. Here’s what you need to know about the arguments surrounding ratification:

Partnership for a Secure America Publishes Statement on New START

The Partnership for a Secure America, an organization committed to restoring bipartisan dialogue and action on American national security and foreign policy, published a new statement on the ratification of the New START Treaty.  Thirty political figures from across the ideological spectrum, such as William Perry, George Shultz, and Madeline Albright, signed the statement, which urges the Senate to quickly ratify the new arms control agreement signed in April.  They acknowledge that the transparency measures provided by the treaty are key to national security, and that it:

• Enhances stability, transparency and predictability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, which together possess about 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons
• Contains verification and inspection measures essential to U.S. national security and nuclear threat reduction as it relates to Russia's strategic nuclear weapons
• Addresses our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and therefore assists in gaining cooperation from other countries on key nonproliferation priorities
• Helps strengthen broader U.S.–Russia cooperation, which is important in responding to proliferation challenges from Iran and North Korea
• Does not inhibit our ability to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal
• Does not constrain our ability to develop and deploy missile defense systems.

New START vs. FY2011 Budget

In his Prague speech, President Obama proclaimed in order for the world to be free of nuclear weapons, the U.S. must spearhead a reduction of its nuclear arsenal. He won the hearts of many in the non-proliferation field when he stated that the U.S. would begin reducing its stockpile under his administration. How disheartening to us all, then, when we learned that his FY2011 budget reflected exactly the opposite. Far from committing funds for disarmament, he actually slashed the dismantlement program by 40%. By caving to conservative demands of modernization, Obama not only breaks his Prague promise, but acts against the spirit of New START.

New START is a follow-on to an agreement originally made between the U.S. and USSR to dismantle the relics of the Cold War, in order to build relations between the two adversaries, as well as reduce the risk of a nuclear accident. How strange then, that as the U.S. agrees to dismantle several hundred weapons with one hand, it funds the construction of weapons fuel facilities and Life Extension Programs (LEP) for aging arsenals with the other.