New Nuclear Disarmament Treaty Heralds
the Beginning of the End for the US as a Superpower
by David T. Pyne, Esq.
May 21, 2002
Note: This is the final Part of a three part series on the Bush-Putin Nuclear Reduction Treaty.
Earlier this week, President Bush (right) announced his intention to sign a sweeping new nuclear disarmament treaty with the Russian Federation, stating his belief that "this treaty…would make the world more peaceful and put behind us the Cold War once and for all." The nuclear disarmament of the United States was the liberal's policy prescription for ending the Cold War, as it remains the liberal's preferred recipe for peace today. However, the Cold War was won not by the disarmament of the United States, but by its re-armament under Ronald Reagan. One would be hard-pressed to think of a single conflict or international dispute in the history of the world, which was won by a nation disarming in the face of a continuing military threat. Bush's radical nuclear disarmament measures, far from making the world more peaceful, are more likely to increase the risks of a future nuclear war between the US and Russia. History has proved the veracity of the fundamental assertion that unilateral disarmament or even "bilateral" disarmament where one side can not be trusted to keep its side of the agreement as here, increases the risks and the prospects for war. Historically, unilateral disarmament often creates dangerous imbalances when one country disarms but another does not, which in turn have the effect of inciting wars begun by aggressor nations rather than averting them. Can anyone honestly say that the world have been safer or more peaceful if the nations of Western Europe had unilaterally disarmed in 1939 in the face of a credible military threat from Nazi Germany?
Critics of such a view respond that the world has permanently changed, that the nations of the world have entered a New World Order in which major conventional wars and certainly nuclear weapons have been rendered obsolete, that Russia is our new strategic ally in the war against terrorism, and that they can be trusted to meet their new treaty obligations to disarm to the same low level of nuclear weapons as the US. They assert that even if the Russians could not be trusted, they are too broke and their military too broken down to pose a credible threat to the United States. These critics are wrong. War is not obsolete and never will be as history has proven until the Lord himself returns to bring peace to the world's nations. If history is to be our guide, there will be a major war within the next fifty years and nuclear weapons may well be employed in war once again, this time against the US, rather than by it. Russia is not our ally and cannot be until she is truly democratized and cleansed of KGB/Communist influence. The Russian strategic nuclear force is fully funded and is likely to remain so for the next fifteen years or so. It is maintained at a relatively high state of readiness with frequent nuclear war exercises conducted by them against the United States.
The proposed US strategic nuclear force level of 1,700 warheads preferred by the Bush Administration is well below even the `minimal deterrence' level of 2,000 warheads advocated by the radical anti-nuke crowd and unilateral disarmers for decades. It is insufficient to deter nuclear attack from Russia because it makes it much easier for the Russians to destroy the US nuclear deterrent before it has a chance to use it. The never-ratified START 2 Treaty already 'requires' the US to deactivate and remove from their launchers all but 3500 warheads by the end of 2003. The Bush Administration has stated its plans to remove the warheads and de-alert US missiles several years in advance of the 2012 completion date, which will effectively disarm the US in the short term since these de-alerted weapons will not be ready to defend the country against nuclear attack. They will then destroy the bulk of these warheads over the next decade while putting the rest in storage where it will take many months to reactivate and re-deploy them in the event of a crisis.
It is certainly fitting that President Bush plans to sign this nuclear disarmament treaty in Moscow on May 24th since the signing of this agreement will represent Moscow's greatest foreign policy victory over the United States since the fall of China to Mao's Red Army over 50 years ago. If Bush goes through with the signature of this agreement, historians may one day look back and say that this was the day that symbolized Russia's victory over US global hegemony in the Post-Cold War period and the day that heralded Russia's own gradual return to global hegemony. They may well say that this was the day that the US voluntarily surrendered its claim to nuclear superpower status in the interests of appeasing Russia and her President.
Concerned Americans need to bombard our representatives with calls, letters, and E-mails to urge President Bush not to sign the nuclear disarmament treaty which would disarm the country of its strategic nuclear deterrent over a period of ten years leaving the US with a grand total of 1700 strategic nukes in 2012 down from the 6000 it has today following the recent completion of START I Treaty-mandated reductions of US warheads. Americans need to enlist every ally in Congress imaginable to sign a letter to the President asking that Bush refrain from signing and implementing the treaty and scrap his nuclear disarmament plans. If Bush does sign the treaty as planned next week, then Americans need to contact their Senators, urging them to vote down the treaty when it is submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification later this year. The US needs to retain its nuclear deterrent at a much higher and more credible level than what Bush has proposed. The future independence and perhaps even the very existence of the United States as a country may well depend on it. ***
© 2002 David T. Pyne, Esq.
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East among others. He is also a licensed attorney and former Army Reserve Officer. In addition, he holds a MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. Mr. Pyne currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Virginia Republican Assembly. He is also a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, D.C.
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.