New Nuclear Disarmament Treaty Heralds the Beginning of the End for the US as a Superpower

New Nuclear Disarmament Treaty Heralds the Beginning of the End for the US as a Superpower

by David T. Pyne

May 21, 2002

Note: This is the final Part of a three part series on the Bush-Putin Nuclear Arms 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.

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. ***

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 and as East Coast Coordinator for the Committee for American Freedom and Enterprise. He is also a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, D.C.

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.

Bush has managed to do it again. He has succeeded in outliberalling the radical left. As the author states, this treaty will go far to create a more dangerous world in which Russia and Communist China work to increase their relative nuclear missile advantage over the US and a nuclear war between the US and the Sino-Russian alliance consequently becomes more and not less likely. Already, the Russian nuclear arsenal is as much as FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN THE US following the Clinton gutting of our nuclear arsenal by two-thirds. After this treaty, the Russian nuclear arsenal could be as much as ten times larger than that of the U.S. Now, Bush wants to cut the US nuclear force by another two-thirds from the already much reduced arsenal he inherited from Bill Clinton. Perhaps, the Russians will eventually create a new holiday to commorate the day the Moscow Treaty was signed. They could call it "Victory over America Day". Since Communism continues to enslave over 1.7 billion people worldwide today, it is fitting that the US never set up its own "Victory over Communism Day." It appears that Lenin has not yet had his last laugh as the Chinese Communists may soon come to replace the US along with their Russian allies as the most powerful geopolitical and military force on the planet.

I disagree with you and Mr. Payne. 1,700 missiles is more than ample to deter an attack or to defeat the enemy if attacked.

Deter? Who is talking about detering? We are talking about winning a nuclear war. With nuke sinks like the Yamantu mountains and the hordes of rogue states acquiring weapons of mass destruction, it's more like 17,000 missiles that we need to make a difference.

I disagree with you and Mr. Payne. 1,700 missiles is more than ample to deter an attack or to defeat the enemy if attacked

I second the notion. Furthermore, what about the SSBNs? Any single trident submarine could devastate the sovi-umm..the comm...umm.THEM DAMN RUSSKIES.

Reminds me of the folks who claim the meltdown of the soviet union is really a "maskarova"(sp?) or deception operation- kind of like what the Indians did, when they pretended to lose the entire continent to us white guys- actually, they're only faking it- they're going to attack us at any moment...

Even President Kennedy signed documents with the UN promising to get a total US disarmament on track. According to this document, the only folks that will eventually have ANY weapons are the "peace-keeping" forces of the UN and enough State (not NATION, mind you) forces to maintain "internal order". Gun registration was, of course, included as a precursor to confiscation although there was a provision outlined to allow for some registered guns to be maintained in private hands for HUNTING....

I disagree with you and Mr. Payne. 1,700 missiles is more than ample to deter an attack or to defeat the enemy if attacked. As you start listing the potential targets we would go after, be they cities or military installations, you quickly see that even 100 missiles will destroy much that we need to destroy. Payne's assumption that most of the 1,700 would be wiped out in a first strike is overly pessimestic but even if true, the remaining ones would do plenty of damage, enough to deter all but the maddest of tyrants.

Well, first of all we are not talking about 1700 missiles. We don't even have close to that many today. Bush's evisceration of our nuclear deterrent will only leave us with 836 strategic missiles. However, Bush has talked favorably of de-alerting the 500 ICBMs, making them impossible to fire except within days or weeks, which would leave only 336 SLBMs. However, under a Clinton-signed executive order supported by Bush, 50% of our nuclear missile subs must remain in port at any one time (Bush actually has suggested increasing the number of our nuclear missile subs required to remain in port and largely unmanned to two-thirds). This means that if there were a crisis in 2012 or thereafter, the US would have only 168 strategic missiles to throw at the Russians. However, the Russians have a vast national missile defense system consisting of 8500 SA-10 ABMs, 1750 of which are armed with neutron warheads with the potential for shooting down multiple incoming warheads at a time. Accordingly, the Russians, merely by keeping the strategic defenses they currently have deployed could shoot down virtually our entire nuclear deterrent leaving only a few US strategic warheads to penetrate their ABM umbrella. As a result by 2012, the US will have no ability to deter Russian nuclear attack, a fact that is recognized by the authors of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review who realizing it was hopeless to try to do so with 1700 warheads, ulitmately decided to remove the US requirement to deter Russian nuclear attack.

For more on this, please see the following article:

Do Russian Nukes Still Threaten the US?

....kind of like what the Indians did, when they pretended to lose the entire continent to us white guys- actually, they're only faking it- they're going to attack us at any moment...

They are already undermining our resolve with those pesky stealth casinos.

As for this article, it is hard for me to believe that with a president like Dubya and Se, of Def. like Rumsfield that we would put ourselves in the position described. As for as doomsayers, they are behind every rock. (I almost said behind every bush but the pun would be contradictory.)

aMERICA HAS BEEN DROPPING HER GUARD FOR MANY YEARS NOW. IT BEGAN WITH THE INSANITY TREATY THAT KENNEDY SIGNED (SALT) AND ONLY REAGAN HAD ANY SENSE AND BUILT DEFENSE UP AGAIN. YOU CAN MARK REAGAN'S WORDS. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE STRENGTH THROUGH WEAKNESS. RUSSIA HAS NEVER EVER EVER KEPT IT'S WORD ON MISSILES. IT'S ONLY POOR BECAUSE ALL OF THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS BEEN SUPPLYING IT WITH MONEY TO KEEP RE-INFORCING THE MILITARY. THEY HAVE PRETENDED THAT COMMUNISM FELL. THE FIRST STRIKES AGAINST AMERICA WILL COME FROM THE BEAR OF THE NORTH - RUSSIA!! COUNT ON IT.

You don't have a clue as to the actual targeting requirement load to take down the Russian's or Chinese significant nuclear and nuclear-related military targets.

The combined amounts of aim-points together with the level of super-hardness (requiring MANY multiple attacks from our fairly weak warheads to take out) already exceed our total, unattacked, existing capacity. After the 2/3s unilateral cuts by the U.S., in view of the stakes at risk, the burden of proof is on you and liberal ilk that there is a sufficient deterrent (prove that the Russians will cut a single launcher they weren't already modernizing with more Topol-Ms, then prove that their warheads will be offloaded either)...we will have very few if any systems on alert. As for me, I will take Donald Rumsfeld's UNCOERCED opinion over GWB's ANY DAY OF THE MILLENIUM.

With very few warheads. It is unlikely that even your hundred warheads would survive a truly thorough first strike by the Russians. And those surviving remnants ONLY on the SLBMs...if the ONE submarine at sea (remember, GWB ultimately plans to eliminate more than two-thirds of the Tridents) survives a sneak attack by the Russians new SUPER-Quiet and fast Hunter-Killer subs (using technology acquired from Toshiba), or other pre-emption methods. And these minimal SLBM warheads would then have to penetrate a fully on-alert Russian NMD...armed with neutron warheads easily able to take out a feeble retaliatory second-strike under the future numbers being projected.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You probably didn't think 9-11 could happen, either. Well, real conservatives DID. And we are still way ahead of you...and our careless GWB... about thinking about the UNTHINKABLE.

You are not getting the point...and to be charitable, you're being fuzzy-headed. The single Trident submarine you are talking about will have huge reductions in its warhead loading. THINK THAT THROUGH. It will essentailly NOT be what you're thinking it is today. It will be de-fanged, weak, and ineffectual. And there is a good chance that that ONE solitary Trident submarine will be being tailed by a passel of Russian hunter-killers just prior to the balloon going up, and a massive first strike being launched. And we are not even talking about the command-control capability issues which the first strike may have eviscerated...

WAKE UP. And SMELL THE COFFEE!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.