Last year, the Obama administration promised that when “fully implemented,” the New START treaty “will result in the lowest number of deployed nuclear warheads since the 1950s.” Critics, including the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged that while the treaty would require the United States to reduce its nuclear stockpile, it would allow Russia to actually expand its arsenal. Russian defense minister Anatoliy Serdyukov agreed, stating three times that Russia was already below the New START limits on both deployed nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles and intended to build up to them.
The Senate approved the treaty in December anyway, and New START won’t expire until 2020. The information that’s become available since then has only supported the critics’ arguments. Russia is indeed below New START’s caps, and is working to build its nuclear capabilities.
Advertisement
On June 1, the State Department confirmed that Russia was below both the limit of 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery vehicles: Russia declared 1,537 and 521, respectively. Thus, we traded 25 percent of American operational nuclear missiles for a Russian nuclear buildup — and Russia is already working to modernize and grow its nuclear arsenal. This is a direct result of the Obama administration’s weak approach to arms control, in which diplomatic agreement for its own sake, not advancing the national interest, becomes the objective.
Before New START, Russia had already announced plans to build about 130 nuclear missiles of various post–Cold War designs, as well as eight new missile submarines. The country was developing a new strategic bomber to be available in 2025–2030. Moreover, Russia was working to modernize the SS-N-23/Sineva, which had gone into service only in 2007, to have precision accuracy.
After New START, Russia announced the largest nuclear buildup since the Cold War. It revived the symbol of the Cold War, the heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin revealed the development of “a heavy liquid-propellant ICBM” to replace the aging SS-18 (Voyevoda), which itself carries ten warheads. The new missile is to be available by 2018.
Russia announced this missile after New START because the treaty, unlike the original START, failed to prohibit new heavy ICBMs. Prior to the ratification of New START, Russia’s final decision on such a missile was not expected before 2012 or 2013. In addition, because it will be able to carry more warheads, the new missile vastly increases Russian cheating and breakout potential. Russia could cheat by hiding two warheads under each cover that the inspectors count, or break out of the treaty by redeploying missiles that are not completely armed at full capacity.
Gerbert Yefremov, the general director of the design bureau that will develop the new heavy ICBM, claims that the missile is needed to reach the New START warhead limit. That is not true. The Russian Defense Ministry said that it could add warheads to another missile, the SS-27, and the Russian press reported that warheads could be added to the Bulava-30 as well. What these missiles can’t do is meet the Soviet-era objective of being able to destroy the U.S.’s first-strike ICBMs in a single attack, which the new heavy ICBM can.
Now 200 SS-27s will reportedly be deployed, most of them MIRVed – that is, capable of carrying several warheads to strike different targets. In March, Minister Serdyukov said that Russia will buy 36 strategic ballistic missiles, two strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles this year. Vladimir Putin added that “in 2013, missile production is expected to increase twofold.” The official news agency Ria Novosti reported that “Russia’s proposed fifth-generation nuclear submarines will be armed with both ballistic and cruise missiles.” Andrei Kokoshin, a member of the Russian assembly, or Duma, confirmed this program. In May, Russian strategic missile force commander Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said, “Fifth-generation ICBMs will make up at least 80 percent of the . . . arsenals by the beginning of 2018.” Also in May, Russia reportedly tested an “in-depth modernization” of the Sineva. In June, Russia announced the Bulava-30 would be operational this year.
Under the announced program, the decline in Russian nuclear forces resulting from the retirement of aging missiles will reverse in 2016, and Russia will meet the warhead limit by 2018. Russia typically follows through on its plans for nuclear-force modernization, although it generally takes longer than predicted.
Here's an idea--we sell our 25% excess to the Russians. We make money, and they have to worry that we didn't mess up the guidance systems so they return to the location where launched.
Mr. Schneider's article is chilling in its description of how policy choices are putting not only America, but the entire free world, at at extreme risk.
It's very discouraging to learn (time and again) how our political leaders select policies based on fantasy while ignoring reality and ever increasing dangers.
One wonders if it will even be possible to deter a nuclear attack when one's own strategic weapons are decades out-of-date.
On so many levels, the leaders of the United States are chosing decline (and worse).
New Start is just a modern version of the Munich Agreement. Anyone who thinks that we are too sophisticated to be 'taken to the cleaners' needs to revisit history and see how foolish the West was in 1938. We are still just as naive. Pieces of paper don't guarantee security. Reagan had it right---security through strength.
Not a fan of the New START but failure to modernize our forces is more of a problem than allowing the Russians more weapons. Even in the face of this treaty, we can maintain good nuclear deterrance if we keep our stuff current. We have always had the advantage in quality and they the advantage in quantity.
I am not impressed with a liquid fueled Russian rocket. That may be more of a liability than an asset. Liquid fuels have usually been a liability for them. Sounds as if they may be continuing with the same old idea of quantity vs. quality that they had through the Cold War.
We just need to maintain our quality, wait till 2012, get rid of Obama, work on our quality some more, keep a numbskull out in 2016, work on our quality, keep a numbskull out in 2020 and then in 2020 negotiate a decent treaty or no treaty at all.
Obama is the most pressing national security problem we have, not the Russians or even the Chinese.
Ah, good old scaremongering. First, 20-30 warheads which hit urban centers can reduce population of USA or Russia by half. Rest is redundancy, really. But having some inspections is worthwhile... Better then none, which should be case without treaty. Next, most of Russian arsenal is obsolete. Bombers are on par with B-52 or less, there is just handful of usable nuclear submarines and if not for Bulava, ICBMs would be also quite old. But on the other hand, best interest of USA in this moment would be nuclear-free world. Combined military of rest of the world cannot invade US soil but USA would not go to war if it risks just one nuclear attack.
The incredible naivete' in continuing to wish for a nuclear free world is appalling in the face of the realities. I strongly suspect that, while we think that the Russians are concerned about the U.S.A., that their eyes are more to the South and Southeast, i.e. the expansion of Islam and the threat of the Chinese billions needing what Russia has. The genie is out of the bottle, my friend, and it will not be tricked into being put back.
