The announcement last month by President
Vladimir Putin of Russia that his country would suspend participation in the
last remaining nuclear arms control pact with the US set off long-dormant alarm
bells. American nuclear forces went on red alert, people rushed to restock
nuclear shelters, toilet paper and powdered milk vanished from grocery shelves…
at least in Putin’s dreams, given his fantasy of restoring Russia to the salad
days of Cold War brinkmanship.
اضافة اعلان
Yet Putin’s pronouncement was widely
interpreted for what it was, saber rattling to convince his cowed citizens that
the war against Ukraine really is a life-or-death clash of superpowers. Most
Americans appeared to take little notice of the announcement; many probably had
only a vague notion of what the New START pact, more formally known as the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, was about. Some may have been surprised that
there were any agreements between the US and Russia left to rip up.
Satisfying as it may be to deny Putin the pleasure
of touching off panic in the West, his move was a blunt reminder that the
threat of nuclear war is still present, possibly metastasizing, and should not
be lightly dismissed.
Nuclear war: A forgotten fear?More than 30 years after the end of the Cold
War, the threat of nuclear obliteration simply does not rank among Americans’
greatest fears. For a while after September 11, global terrorism reigned in the
public’s mind as the most pressing threat. According to a 2022 survey by the
Pew Research Center, cyberattacks are now considered the major global menace,
followed by false information, China, Russia, the global economy, infectious
diseases, and climate change. My grandson, a college student, told me his peers
do not see a global nuclear war as a real danger today.
Satisfying as it may be to deny Putin the pleasure of touching off panic in the West, his move was a blunt reminder that the threat of nuclear war is still present, possibly metastasizing, and should not be lightly dismissed.
Yet even the sharply reduced Russian and
American nuclear arsenals are still enough to wipe out much of the world, China
is pushing hard to become the third nuclear superpower, and at least six other
countries, including the uber-dictatorship North Korea, have nuclear weapons
(the others: Britain, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan).
Perversely, the complexity of today’s world
has even generated something akin to nostalgia for a time when there were only
two superpowers to deal with and stability depended on mutually assured
destruction. But it is hard to be nostalgic about a time when President John F.
Kennedy urged all Americans to prepare nuclear shelters (“The time to start is
now”) and nuclear nightmares were the stuff of popular movies like “On the
Beach”, “Fail Safe”, and “Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and
Love the Bomb”.
True, there were fears when the Soviet
Union collapsed that a terrible “second nuclear age” of unchecked proliferation
and nuclear terrorism would follow. In fact, since the end of the Cold War only
North Korea got its own bomb, and its nuclear program began long before the
Soviet Union ended. On the opposite side of the ledger, South Africa abandoned
its nuclear program in 1989, and three new states that inherited some Soviet
nuclear weapons — Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan — surrendered them (perhaps
now to their regret).
Retaining limitsYet nuclear arms controls are as needed
today as they ever were, and not only with Moscow. Putin obliquely acknowledged
that when, after saying on February 21 that Russia would suspend participation
in New START, Russia quickly added that the country would continue to respect
the treaty’s limits on nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
Even the sharply reduced Russian and American nuclear arsenals are still enough to wipe out much of the world, China is pushing hard to become the third nuclear superpower, and at least six other countries… have nuclear weapons
The alternative, he knew, could be a new
arms race in which Russia was no match for America’s economic and technological
abilities. In effect, Putin’s announcement extended a suspension of on-site
inspections that began during the pandemic.
That is serious. But at least the principle
of limiting strategic nuclear warheads (to 1,550 each) and the missiles,
submarines, and heavy bombers with which to launch them survives.
Even if the Doomsday Clock does not move
any closer to midnight, time is still running out. New START expires in three
years. It is hard to imagine negotiations on a new treaty so long as the war in
Ukraine rages on.
Beijing and other playersAt the same time, China is racing ahead in
an apparent bid to match the US and Russian arsenals by 2035. So far, Beijing
has rebuffed any efforts to negotiate limits with the US, though it joined the
US, Russia, France, and Britain in January 2022 in declaring that “nuclear war
cannot be won and must never be fought”.
Even if Russia and China can be brought to the table, the parties will need a new way to define how many bombs each nation needs to deter the other two.
Even if Russia and China can be brought to
the table, the parties will need a new way to define how many bombs each nation
needs to deter the other two.
In the meantime, China’s growing arsenal
might spur India to build up its own, which could prod Pakistan to do the same.
On other fronts, Iran is said to be steadily advancing its nuclear program
since former President Donald Trump’s ill-advised withdrawal from the Iran
nuclear deal. And there are no contacts with North Korea, which demonstrated
readiness in the past to negotiate constraints on its nuclear program.
With the war in Ukraine casting a pall on
Washington’s relations with Russia, China, India, and much of the global south,
arms controls may seem a waste of time. But the era of arms controls began when
relations between Washington and Moscow reached a dangerous low after the Cuban
missile crisis.
Putin’s missile-rattling may be a signal
that the Ukraine war has taken us there again.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News