 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ironically, it is the Bush administration — often assailed as unilateralist and dangerously hawkish — that is finalizing a treaty to slash the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. President Bush announced Monday that the U.S. has agreed to a framework for a massive nuclear-arms-reduction accord with Russia, decreasing nuclear stockpiles to pre-ABM Treaty levels. And when the new treaty is signed during the summit in Moscow and St. Petersburg later this month it will, as Bush said in announcing the deal, "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War." But while reducing our offensive nuclear supplies, the administration is continuing the fight for a national-missile-defense program to protect the nation against attacks from all quarters — including the relatively unforeseen nuclear threat from "rogue nations" and the Axis of Evil. Despite the hue and cry from the anti-nuke crowd in December, the Russians are along for the ride. In a statement that would never have been uttered by a Soviet leader 15 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the committed involvement of the Bush administration: "Without the interested, active position of the American administration and the attention of President Bush, it would have been difficult to reach such agreements." So much for the "disengaged" and "unilateralist" administration. The U.S. and Russia have been actively engaged in discussions since an agreement last fall by the two leaders in an effort to condense nuclear stores to less than 2,200 warheads. But several sticking points prevented agreement beyond this basic structure. Both sides made concessions in recent meetings, easing path to final agreement: American negotiators agreed to sign a formal treaty rather than an informal agreement; Russians conceded that some U.S. warheads will be stored rather than destroyed and technical arrangements were codified. This historic agreement is an example of the new thinking of a new administration in regard to the "nuclear question." The American stance throughout the Cold War, and reaching into the previous administration has been to focus on offense — namely Mutually Assured Destruction — while attempting to slow the growth of the nuclear buildup and new missile sites around the world. But new leadership is focusing on new ideas. A protective posture — specifically National Missile Defense — and a dramatic reduction of nuclear arms to decrease the capabilities of foreign threats has replaced the goal of having the ability to destroy the world several times over. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued a presidential decision (PDD-60) outlining the U.S. strategic policy of nuclear deterrence, but deterrence based on offense, not strategic defense. That stance, though, is slowly changing. As Bush said during the 2000 campaign, "the Cold War logic that led to the creation of massive stockpiles on both sides is now outdated. Our mutual security need no longer depend on a nuclear balance of terror." The policy of certain retaliation must be augmented with continued development of a program that one day could make ICBMs obsolete. There are several credible avenues to make that possible, including theater-based, submarine-launched anti-ballistic-missile programs, joint programs with former foes such as Russia or a large-scale — and expensive-multi-platform program. These should all be considered and the best ideas advanced. In his famous "tear down this wall" speech at the Brandenburg Gate nearly 15 years ago, President Ronald Reagan asserted that we must maintain "defenses of unassailable strength." But as we seek peace, "we must strive to reduce arms on both sides." Now, nearly 15 years later, the dream of reduced arsenals and "unassailable" defenses are much closer to reality — despite the protestations of critics trapped in the old realities of the Cold War. — Robert Stewart is a former Army intelligence analyst who was stationed in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War. He now writes on security issues from Washington, D.C. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
hen President
Bush announced in December that the United States intends to withdraw
from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, critics claimed the decision
would ignite a new arms race with Russia. Yet despite the protestations
of detractors, both American and Russian leaders are in agreement on the
need to sign an historic agreement dramatically reducing the nuclear capability
of both nations.
