The 'Moscow Treaty' and why it's a bad idea

There is an old English proverb from the 15th century, from a time of civil war and intrigue, that says: "In trust is treason." It has long been said that there is a time to trust and a time to withhold trust. Shakespeare's Henry V offers us the following advice: "Trust none; For oaths are straws, men's faiths are wafercakes, And hold-fast is the only dog."

In 1732 Thomas Fuller wrote: "If we are bound to forgive an enemy we are not bound to trust him." Henry Fielding advised readers: "Not to trust him who hath deceived you, nor who knows he hath been deceived by you." A French proverb says, "God save me from him I trust." An Italian proverb says, "Trust was a good man, but Trust-not was a better." The Yugoslav's say, "Trust only yourself and your own horse." And of course, in America we say, "I trust him as far as I can throw him."

President George Bush evidently thinks he can throw the Kremlin quite a distance. While running for the presidency two years ago, Bush spoke of dramatically cutting U.S. strategic nuclear arms. Last week he went to Moscow and signed a treaty with the Kremlin that will eliminate approximately 5,000 U.S. nuclear weapons by 2012.

The new treaty says that the United States and Russia are embarking "upon the path of new relations for a new century committed to the goal of strengthening their relationship through cooperation and friendship." The word "new" is repeated again and again in the treaty's text. This reminds me of the phrase "new and improved," reminiscent of American detergent and soap commercials of the 1970s. Here is a treaty that shamelessly puffs itself. Here is an indirect and perhaps unconscious confession of uncertainty regarding the last decade of (supposedly warm and fuzzy) U.S.-Russian relations.

With an oblique reference to "new global challenges and threats [that] require the building of a qualitatively new foundation for strategic relations," the treaty seeks to establish what it calls "a genuine partnership based on the principles of mutual security, cooperation, trust [see above], openness, and predictability." And how will the treaty accomplish all of this?

The secret is to implement "significant reductions in strategic offensive arms." In other words, the secret is to reduce the number of nuclear weapons poised on ICBMs and loaded into ballistic missile submarines. This reduction is also expected to enhance "international stability."

Article I of the treaty states that, "Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads … so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party." We are not given a definition of "strategic nuclear warhead," so that we cannot tell whether this would signify all warheads over 10 kilotons or all warheads over 100 kilotons. The fact that Russia has a much larger arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads is not addressed in the treaty. Chinese nuclear forces are also not covered in the treaty, so China is free to build as many nuclear weapons as it pleases.

The treaty allows three months notice for either side to "withdraw." It only remains in force "until December 31, 2012" (although it could be extended by subsequent agreement).

This is an amazing document because it drops U.S. nuclear forces down to a level considered unsafe by some U.S. nuclear arms experts (see former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry's two volume work, "The Strategic Nuclear Balance And Why It Matters," and former DIA analyst William Lee's "The ABM Treaty Charade"). Even more important, the United States is the country that has gained the most from the previous "balance of terror." With so many thousands of nuclear weapons ready to launch at any moment, the West's enemies have been remarkably well behaved, reserving their greatest mischief for the economic edges and neglected outlands of the global economy.

Maintaining a large nuclear deterrent has been relatively cheap and effective for the United States. It would be very hard for Russia to eliminate 7,000 or more U.S. nuclear warheads in a surprise first strike. Will the same be true when the U.S. has only 2,000 warheads? If recent intelligence reports are true and Russia was tempted to launch a surprise strike against America in the 1980s, then we cannot rule out an even more tempting situation when U.S. warhead numbers have fallen by 5,000.

At the same time, Russia has already deployed ABM defenses while the United States has yet to deploy a similar system. Russia has a massive nuclear-proof underground bunker infrastructure far in advance of that possessed by the United States. All of these factors suggest that the military balance is not a matter of straight numbers. And then, at the risk of repeating what has already been noted, there is the question of China's growing nuclear capability.

The American people and U.S. leaders want to avoid a conflict with Russia. We want to trust the Russians. We want to believe there will be peace. But there cannot be peace as long as the Kremlin continues to fudge or violate existing agreements (chemical, biological and nuclear). There is no genuine state of peace while the Kremlin uses criminal organizations as fronts for subversion and sabotage across the globe. There cannot be peace while Russia works to build up the nuclear and missile power of Iran, North Korea and (on the sly) Iraq. As it happens, President Bush spoke to President Putin about Russian nuclear technology going to Iran, and Putin rebuked Bush. This rebuke tells us all we need to know about the Russian superpower. And yes, Russia is a superpower because Russia can reduce America's cities to rubble in a matter of hours.

President Bush is fooling himself if he believes the Russian side will keep the Moscow Treaty in good faith.

Due to our pathetic command of history in this country, we fail to realize just how closely we follow in the footsteps of the UK, 1919 - 1939. And, like the "defeated" Germans (who got the deal of the century via the limp wristed Armistice, which seemed painful in terms of borders and reparations, but did not really prevent rearmament), the "post Cold War" Russians are also essentially free to use a plethora of strategies to rearm or to position themselves for rapid rearmament. Here are a few off the top of my head:

* "Outsourced" development and manufacture, particularly that currently proceeding in the PRC. Just like how the Germans outsourced to the Netherlands, Finland and Russia during the 20s and 30s.

* Tactical nukes. We got rid of most of ours. The Russians continue to keep their arsenal, which has always vastly exceeded ours. Add to that the tac nuke arsenal (growing) of now Axis bound (by the 7/16/2001 Axis agreement) PRC, and the combined firepower is mind boggling.

* IRBMs and SRBMs. The same situation as tactical nukes. Plus, the numbers resident in client states and in outsourced operations adds to this.

* Cheating. Say no more.

The world always takes advantage of America's low historical IQ.

And, like the "defeated" Germans (who got the deal of the century via the limp wristed Armistice, which seemed painful in terms of borders and reparations, but did not really prevent rearmament), the "post Cold War" Russians are also essentially free to use a plethora of strategies to rearm or to position themselves for rapid rearmament.

Yes, but remember the Russians were never really defeated. There was no real war between the US and Russia only small scale proxy conflicts. In a very real sense Russia "defeated" herself when Gorby decided to implement a clever grand deception strategy to "collapse" the Soviet Union which in so many ways seems to have backfired badly, but which in a few other ways has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Not having been defeated, Russia was never disarmed of her vast nuclear and conventional military arsenal. Never having been defeated, Russia never removed its Communist and especially KGB nomenlatura from the supreme national leadership that now run and rule the country. There was no denazification as in Germany, no deindustrialization or demilitarization. There was never any restriction imposed on the size and quality of her military forces. Therefore, it is no surprise that Russia, desperate to reclaim her position as a global superpower is once again implementing a clever strategy (to include US unilateral nuclear disarmament, the new Russian veto over NATO's decisions and the formalization of her increasingly close military alliance with Communist China) which will enable her to gain power over the US and the world. This is why this bogus talk of a US alliance with Russia is not only merely naive, but dangerously so.

This article, and its title in particular, looks strangely similar to one written by another author a full week before:

The Moscow Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty - Arms Control at its Worst

Since I am personally acquainted with this author and know that this article was submitted to his website last week but never posted, perhaps Mr. Nyquist who has not written for weeks or months, is running out of new ideas. Or perhaps not. since his article omits many important technical flaws in the treaty such as the fact that the treaty allows Russia to deploy monster MIRV'd ICBMs and SLBMs with as many re-entry vehicles as they can pack in each missile.

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.