President Obama and Russian President Medvedev have agreed to negotiate a new treaty designed to further reduce and limit strategic weapons.
Their joint statement says:
"We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations. We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July."
There have been moments before in history when it was possible to make huge 
progress towards banning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. One such moment was the summit in 1986 in Reykjavik when Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan held meetings to reduce ballistic missiles by 50% and have zero intermediate-range missiles in Europe.
Eventually, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in December 1987 and it has resulted in the scrapping of many missiles. However, Gorbachev wanted to go further than that. "The ultimate goal was to eliminate nuclear weapons," Gorbachev said in a 2007 speech. "You can't get rid of nuclear weapons overnight, but we should be working in that direction. We 
should persuade policy makers that this is the way to go."
I believe this is another moment in history that we should embrace.
As I said in my 2007 article A Global Treaty Banning All Nuclear Weapons, the US should declare its intention to ban not only all nuclear, but also all chemical and biological weapons of mass murder. We should aim for a global treaty, and we should start to work out details now, such as on verification and inspections, as well as access for the media to military facilities worldwide.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 46
If such a treaty works well, no shot needs to be fired, due to its escalation procedures. Such a treaty should include details such as verification and inspections, as well as access for the media to military facilities worldwide. Media access should be given to suspicious places, so that the media can expose efforts to build such weapons. If media access is refused, trade sanctions could follow. Force would only be needed as a method of last resort and - in my view - won't be necessary as long as all countries stick to the agreement and back this up with a firm stand against efforts to develop such weapons.
Nuclear weapons help balance numbers of conventional troops, a contest we loose with several large and semi hostile nations. They also warn others that an attack on us MAY result in their national destruction. The alternative to that is many more troops/conventional weapons. This proposed treaty is worthless and verifiable. We have far more to lose than gain from it.
Hell, we can't control chemical or biological weapons now. As these are poor man's nukes are far more dangerous, its important we keep a counter balance AND maintain the historical US refusal to launch first if we deem necessary. Idealistic games are ok for college but in the real world, Obama is playing with millions of lives for no reason or gain.
The abolition of nuclear weapons is planned to take place gradually, Charles, and the end-goal is a nuclear free world, as the joint statement says. This means we've got to start working on access to facilities for verification and escalation procedures in case such action is denied. Trade sanctions are only one part of that.
Charles: "Nuclear weapons help balance numbers of conventional troops, a contest we loose with several large and semi hostile nations."
I see no threat of the US being invaded by foreign troops. Even in a fantasy scenario, the US has sufficient superiority in conventional weapons to stop foreign troops from marching into the US, and to retaliate against other countries with conventional weapons in ways that are as destructive as using nuclear weapons.
I guess the term conventional is somewhat confusing, as it may give the impression that there had been no technical development in these weapons over the years. The contrary is the case, precisely because the use of nuclear weapons is out of the question. Non-radiation type of weapons such as the BLU-82 daisy cutter were used in Vietnam and its descendant is the MOAB. Russia has had the vacuum bomb for years, while "thermobaric bombs" were used by US forces in Afghanistan, weapons that create blasts of very high temperatures, evaporating anything alive without contaminating the area with radiation, allowing 'friendly' troops to move in immediately afterwards.
Charles: "..we can't control chemical or biological weapons now. As these are poor man's nukes are far more dangerous, its important we keep a counter balance AND maintain the historical US refusal to launch first if we deem necessary."
If there are poor countries working on either nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, chemical or biological weapons, then the more reason to push for a treaty like this. The reason why the pressure of diplomacy and sanctions hasn't worked in the past is that superpowers did veto it or shielded poor countries in certain ways against the full impact of sanctions. This is why such a treaty has to start with the superpowers, which is exactly what is happening now. The US is in the fortunate position that it can dismantle its nuclear arsenal without having to fear an invasion, and this is why the US can and should take the lead in these negotiations.
There's no such thing as a historical US refusal to launch first. The US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in anger. Furthermore, there are many examples where the US did launch preemptive missions and attacks. The best preemptive strategy is to work on a treaty like this including the appropriate verification and escalation procedures.
No Third World countries need apply.
Let's see what the ink on this paper is worth...U.S./Russia/Israel/China/Britain/India/France, etc. jump to it let's see who can scrap their' deadly arsenal quicker.
In the mean time the hoi polloi nations of the world need to keep developing defensive weapons...just in case the nuclear club changes it's mind...and start's manning their' Enola Gays.
Third world countries with nuclear weapons should be included in this treaty. Countries without nuclear weapons also have an important role in the treaty, i.e. to stand by their non-nuclear status, to encourage other country to join and to show their commitment to back up sanctions in case of non-compliance.
Non-compliance to what? Diktats from the nuclear powers...we can have them, but, they can't. Until no one has them everyone has a right to their' own. When the U.S. and Russia dismantle all their nuclear capabilities...than get up on the pulpit to preach against nuclear weapons.
Nobody has any "right" to commit mass murder. Countries refusing to take verifiable steps towards abandoning nuclear, biological and chemical weapons should face sanctions and all treaty members should back up such sanctions.
Until now, rivalry between superpowers has made it hard to make such sanctions bite, but - as said - I sense a historic opportunity to reach a global commitment to abolish all weapons of mass murder and we shouldn't let this opportunity pass by.
If you believe for one second that the U.S. and Russia are going to give up the WMD's get ready for a big let-down.
Sure, we shouldn't blindly trust anyone on the subject of WMM. That's precisely why we should push for verification, escalation procedures, openness and greater access for the media to facilities that are suspect.
I'm all for a bilateral 'openless and greater access' between the two signing members...Russia and the U.S.A. Once the are totally nuclear free...call the rest of the world...lead by example.
I don't think it should be left up to just the US and the Russian Federation to work out the details of what should become a global treaty. Many countries in the world also need to do a lot of work regarding openness and access for the media. The cloak of "military secrecy" and "national security" is used all too often to silence journalists and publications that could constitute a political threat to dictatorial regimes that fear that more openness could expose the fact that national interest was better served by other things than by parading nuclear warheads before old guys in military uniforms who like to stage shows to cement their power. We should push the issue of freedom of speech, because that is both in the national interest of these countries and in the interest of the world at large.
Furthermore, companies engaging in development of dangerous substances and activities should have sufficient insurance coverage. Lower insurance premiums will act as an incentive to ensure that sufficient research and testing will be done. The US government gives huge amounts of money to fund research - part of this money should be used for insurance. At the same time, insurance companies should have sufficient asset backing to pay out in case of large claims.
You, like the neocons just want to lord it over non-Super Powers. Take care of your' own dirty laundry before you start telling other countries about their's. I think it's great that Russia and the U.S. are willing to eliminate nuclear weapons. Now do it...also, get the other members of the nuclear club to sign on to this fantasy.
The rest of the world is not as gullible as some think.
"President Obama declared shortly after his inaugural that "the gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes."
He vowed to "crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions."
Well, at least Obama didn’t threaten to automatically launch "preventative" wars of aggression – a la Bush the Younger — against countries like North Korea and Iran who break the "rules" imposed by the Bush-Cheney-Bolton Proliferation Security Initiative.
No, Obama appears to be merely threatening to ensure that "strong international sanctions" are "automatically" imposed by the UN Security Council on countries who "violate" the NPT and/or the UN Charter.
Well, that lets out Iran, which has violated neither."
http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/04/03/americas-new-era-of-leadership/
I know one country that isn't going to sign this so-called treaty. Let the Hegemon apply all the sanctions it pleases.
"Will Obama press Israel to allow nuclear inspection of Dimona reactor?"
Dream on, Sam, thiese bad boys will never give up their' nukes. Even you should know that.
'openness and freedom of speech are vital and many countries still have a long way to go in that respect.'
Why don't you worry about your' own country and stop trying to lord it over the rest of the world? Who died and made you king?
"Barack Obama threatens action against North Korea over missile test"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6029272.ece
In response...today North Korea entered the Space Age:
"Associated Press Writers Jean H. Lee And Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writers – 23 mins ago
SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea fired a rocket over Japan on Sunday, defying Washington, Tokyo and others who suspect the launch was cover for a test of its long-range missile technology. President Barack Obama warned the move would further isolate the communist nation.
Liftoff took place at 11:30 a.m. (0230 GMT) from the coastal Musudan-ri launch pad in northeastern North Korea, the South Korean and U.S. governments said. The multistage rocket hurtled toward the Pacific, reaching Japanese airspace within seven minutes, but no debris appeared to hit its territory, officials in Tokyo said.
Four hours after the launch, North Korea declared it a success. The satellite reached outer space in just over nine minutes and was orbiting without any problems, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said in a dispatch from Pyongyang."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_missile
I guess it's time for Barack to get his gang together and give them uppity Koreans what-for.
I do, indeed, welcome all the nuclear nations destroying all their' nuclear capabilities, but, until than don't be dictating to other nations acquiring the same capabilities you and your neocon leaders have. I will welcome it when the nuclear club eliminates ALL it's nukes.
'the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes'.
The most dangerous regime already has nukes. Evidence...Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This argument is going nowhere.
The Obama/Medvedev initiative is a rose-colored glasses approach to giving false hopes about the stability of World Peace. We're no where near achieving that at this time.
Now I know I'll be called a racist, and Maryann will make another attack on me about this, but facts are facts. They work, and only fools who don't live in reality do not see this. I would love not having the WMDs, but we do not live in a world where it is safe not to have them.
The US has guided missiles that incorporate cameras and satellite pictures of targets, allowing such targets to be destroyed with pin-point accuracy without the mass murder of millions of people that would result from launching a nuclear missiles against such a target.
I don't see the logic behind your suggestion that the US should hang on to nuclear weapons until all other countries had abolished nuclear weapons. I don't see why that was needed, moreover I don't see that as compatible with your stated goal of achieving world peace.
As I said, Dan, I see no threat that being a non-nuclear power was going to make the US prone to be invaded by foreign troops. Hanging on to nuclear weapons will only make other countries want them too.
A fact sheet released by the White House says Mr. Obama will propose a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia by the end of the year. He is also expected to announce plans to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The president's aides say the speech will lay out a "very comprehensive framework" on how major powers can eliminate their nuclear arsenals, while deterring other countries from seeking to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
U.S. President Barack Obama says the existence of nuclear weapons is the "most dangerous legacy of the Cold War." He also called for a new international treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and that will include China, India and Pakistan.
Japan has expressed strong support for U.S. President Barack Obama's call for a "nuclear weapons-free world." Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso told reporters Monday that Mr. Obama's initiative is a good move for a country that possesses nuclear weapons. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura said earlier that Japan also supports the U.S. president's statements on the importance of nuclear non-proliferation.
Sadly, many dictatorial regimes seek to stifle free speech and seek scapegoats abroad in efforts to hide the extent of their own faults. As I said, promotion of free speech and greater access for the media goes hand in hand with verification.
Furthermore, many dictators have until now been able to get away with bad behavior by playing out one superpower against the other. That's why it's so important to see the US and Russia make this joint statement.
Its America that has created most of the wars since WWII just for personal corporate profit including Iraq and Afghanistan. America has not attacked one rogue nation since 9/11.
Cowards should not get involved in nuclear politics because they get to many innocent people killed.
We will never have a nuclear free world as long as the necessary material keeps being manufactured. We power our warships and many commercial ships with nuclear material and it is always under the threat of theft along with the technology to make nuclear weapons. All you need is one traitor like Bush/Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz and a few other corporate criminals to sell the technology to people like Hussein and their WMD is well on the way.
Their are more WMD than just nukes and Who do you think would be the winner in a real nuclear exchange between America and Russia? It would not be you or me Felix it would be the political cons that fill your head with propaganda that the "Ruskies are bad boys." Your leaders do not care about you or anyone else, your just a tool for their on going conquest of the world.
Nuclear weapons do not make a super power its the wealth of a country that dominates all other currency.
How many times over does America and Russia have to be able to destroy the world before you will finally come out of your closet and feel safe?