CNS News reported yesterday that James Miller, the Pentagon's leading authority on nuclear arms, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Even large-scale Russian cheating on a new nuclear arms treaty would not hurt U.S. security because U.S. nuclear strengths would more than offset any Russian violations, the Obama administration has concluded."
Senator John McCain asked him why, if Russian cheating wouldn't matter, had the Administration bothered to negotiate the treaty. I agree with Senator McCain (that does not happen often).
The article points out:
"The ability of U.S. missile-bearing submarines and bombers to survive any Russian first strike, and to deliver a devastating counterstrike, would be "unaffected by even large-scale cheating" by the Russians, Miller said. That fact will discourage Russia from trying to secretly exceed the pact's limits on warheads, he said.
"What's more, in a crisis the U.S. would be able to add extra nuclear warheads to missiles aboard submarines and bombers - a capability the Russians apparently do not have, Miller said."
Don't count on it. I really don't understand why we want this treaty. We can conclude from past experience that Russia's idea of how to comply with a treaty might be different from ours. We can also observe that Russia right now is not working toward peace. Russia has fomented trouble in the now independent countries that were formerly part of the USSR. They have promised missile defense systems to Iran (not yet delivered), and they are openly helping Iran with its nuclear program. This does not sound like a quest for peace. So why are they willing to sign an arms reduction treaty? What's in it for them?
I long for the days of Ronald Reagan--"Trust, but verify!"
Leave a comment