In the past few weeks, we have witnessed a series of astonishing events. For the first time in decades, perhaps since the nuclear age began, there is real hope that we can reign in the nuclear beast. First there was the signing of a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the U.S. and Russia on April 8th. Then, the unveiling of the Nuclear Posture Review that tackles some of the toughest issues of nuclear proliferation. And finally the Nuclear Security Summit, a meeting of 47 nations, the largest gathering of heads of state on nuclear issues since the formation of the UN, to reach agreement about ways to secure all weapons-grade materials in the world within four years. All this leading up to the review conference in May for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in which the U.S., for the first time in decades, may play an important positive role.
Each of these initiatives only goes part of the way, however. The New START treaty, for example, does set lower limits for deployed nuclear warheads than ever before, but by creating “counting rules” which attribute only one warhead per bomber, actually could allow more warheads than the Moscow Treaty of 2002. Yet the new accords, unlike those in 2002, strictly limit the total number of deployed missiles and bombers to 700 per country. And, perhaps most importantly, New START provides a robust verification regime–including 18 on-site inspections per side per year--for at least another ten years. All-in-all, Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association calls it “the most important nuclear arms reduction treaty in nearly two decades.”
Similarly, the long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review, which the Union of Concerned Scientists terms “the most far-reaching changes in policy since the end of the Cold War” takes several important steps, but disappoints as well. The Review boldly states that “The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any country that does not have nuclear weapons and that is abiding by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” but it fails to define a strict “no first use” policy. It declares that the U.S. will not produce new warheads or modify existing warheads “to provide new military capabilities,” but it allows replacement of existing components with entirely new ones. And while retiring the Tomahawk Cruise missile, it retains other tactical nuclear weapons and fails to take ICBM’s off full alert.
During the third astonishing event of “non-proliferation Spring,” in addition to the general agreements all nations at the Nuclear Security Summit signed, several important country-specific agreements were announced. The Ukraine and Chile will give up all their remaining stores of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU); Mexico will accept help in converting its research reactor to non-weapons-grade fuel; Russia is shutting down its last plutonium-production reactor; and Canada has agreed to return its stockpile of HEU to the U.S. Now comes the difficult part–implementation–which was only spelled out in the most general terms.
The vision has been laid out. “Obama sees the connections between these various initiatives,” observes Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund. ". . . he is serious about making nonproliferation a top priority and legacy item on his foreign-policy agenda. He's put the full prestige of his office behind it."
Now it is time for action. Citizen action. The opportunities abound. It is up to us to hold our politicians and policymakers accountable, and push them to bring these initiatives to fruition—to achieve a sustainable planet freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation. We each need to do our part in helping to convert that vision into reality. That’s what 2020 Action is all about.
-- Ken Thomson, National 2020 Core Group(Image courtesy of Flickr user Timothy Hamilton, shared under a Creative Commons license.)
