Nuclear Weapons 731 - New START Arms-reduction Treaty Is Expiring And Trump Administration Has No Intention Of Renewing - Part 2 of 2 Parts

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Third, the Russians think that Trump’s conditions for extending the New START treaty are unreasonable. The 2010 treaty reduced the number of U.S. and Russian long-range delivery systems for nuclear warheads that could reach each other’s territory. Billingslea has said that Trump will not agree to extend New START unless the Russians agree on the broad outlines of a future treaty which would also limit Russia’s short-range missiles. The U.S. has few short-range missiles so it would be able to easily abide by the new terms but Russia has many short-range missiles which it feels that it needs to deal with a possible conflict with European powers. They are unlikely to accept any terms regarding short-range missiles in the opening stages of a new round of negotiations.
     Russia on the other hand wants the U.S. to limit its anti-missile interceptors in exchange for any more reductions in offensive weapons. Trump has refused to even consider such a condition. Trump and Billingslea also want China to be included in the next round of arms reduction negotiations. China has absolutely no interest in joining the negotiations. China has about twenty percent of the active nuclear weapons possessed by the U.S. and Russia. It does not consider itself to be in an arms race with the U.S. or Russia. Pulling China into trilateral negotiations over nuclear weapons might encourage China to think about demanding equality in nuclear warheads which would be starting a new arm race.
     Finally, the U.S. just does not need a larger nuclear arsenal. During the original negotiations for New START and the ratification debate following, no senior U.S. military officer was arguing that the treaty was placing unfair burdens on our nuclear arsenal or our ability to defend ourselves.
      As soon as New START was signed, several Obama officials entered into an exercise with top officers at the U.S. strategic Command that lasted for months. They examined the existing nuclear war plans in great detail, and asked about all the Russian targets that needed to be destroyed and how many U.S. warheads would be required to destroy them. In the end, the Obama officials and military officers concluded that the U.S. could get rid of about one third of its currently deployed nuclear warheads without endangering national security. In separate discussions with Obama, the Joints Chiefs of Staff said that they would not endorse such a reduction unless the Russians reduced their nuclear arsenal by a similar amount.
     There is another good argument for keeping New START. The terms of the treaty include extensive provisions for mutual inspections for the purpose of verifying that neither side is cheating. It creates a forum that can be used to exchange data and discuss disputes. In the decade since the treaty was signed, the Russians have stuck to the terms of the treaty. This has been acknowledged by critics of Russian cheating on other arms control treaties. The treaty also puts a ceiling on how many nuclear warheads the Russians are allowed to build in the next decade and, therefore, the number of new warheads that we should plan on building in the same period. Without a treaty, the ceiling disappears, and Russia would be free to build a lot more nukes. This would trigger a commitment in the U.S. to build more as well.
      The main point is this. No one in the U.S. government or military is suggesting that the U.S. really needs more nuclear weapons. It would be much simpler and a lot cheaper to just extend New START. The Russians have said that they are willing to do that without any preconditions. The U.S. reaps no benefit for pulling Russia into another nuclear arms race.
      It would just be an act of common sense to keep the current limits in place and not a matter of weakness or appeasement. Apparently Trump is not interested in common sense on the subject of nuclear weapons. He only seems to be interested in bluster and meaningless measures of strength. It would be best for the U.S. and the world for him to lose the election on November 3rd.