In his State of the Union speech, President Obama renewed his push for large cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. An ambitious program of negotiation and diplomacy, President Obama seeks a solution to a growing global issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In this tumultuous time where Iran, North Korea and Israel are raising the nuclear stakes, is the timing right to lay out a groundbreaking plan for global zero U.S. nuclear policy?
President Obama isn’t expected to identify the number he wants to reduce of U.S. nuclear war arsenal, but the administration has reviewed the issue of National Security and concluded that sizable cuts can be made. Center for Public Integrity reported that “Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to sources involved in the deliberations.”
They said the officials’ consensus agreement, not yet announced, opens the door to billions of dollars in military savings that might ease the federal deficit and improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before the president leaves office. But it is likely to draw fire from the GOP if previous debate on the issue is any guide.
The U.S. currently has around 1,700 nuclear missiles, and in the 2009 New START treaty with Russia, the Obama administration first pushed for reduction to no more than 1,550 by 2018, but in his State of Union address he seems to have a more ambitious program.
“We’re very pleased to see that he’s now moving on to the second part of that agenda, to reduce arsenals further,” Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association, a leading arms-control advocacy group
The world is changing constantly; after the Cold War, there were five recognized nuclear powers, now we have nine. If Iran gets the bomb, we could end up with nuclear arms in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Is there still hope to stop the spread of nuclear weapons?
Chief Executive of the Nuclear Threat Initiative Sam Nunn said: “Look, just five years ago, 40 countries had weapons-usable nuclear materials. Now there are only 28 left. And a number of nations have given up their nuclear weapons entirely, like Kazakhstan, Belarus or Ukraine. Others like South Korea or Brazil could have developed nuclear weapons, but did not do so. So it’s not all bleak. Of course, you have some big avalanches threatening to come down the mountain, with Iran and North Korea. But when you look at the avalanches that have missed us so far, there is something to be grateful for.”
But not everyone agrees with Sam Nunn’s assessment of National security.
Global Zero
Controversy surrounds the appointment of Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense. GOP members Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) all opposed his appointment primarily on the basis of his politics on the Iraq war and his refusal to support President George W. Bush’s Iraq troop surge, but also his connection with Global Zero group.
Senator Hagel will be the first Pentagon official to support the view of huge reductions in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons, possibly without equivalent cuts by Russia. It has been widely reported that Hagel supports an international movement called Global Zero that favors eliminating all nuclear weapons.
That puts him outside the orthodoxy embraced by many of his fellow Republicans but inside a widening circle of national security thinkers who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset, less relevant to 21st century security threats like terrorism.
“Senator Hagel certainly would bring to office a more ambitious view on nuclear reductions than his predecessors,” said Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “While he would likely take a less dramatic position in office, it might not be a bad thing to have a secretary of defense question what nuclear deterrence requires today.”
By appointing Senator Hagel as Secretary of Defense, President Obama has put one part of the puzzle together to complete his goal for nuclear reduction. The other part is of the puzzle is more complicated. How do you convince the GOP that solving the problems of Israeli, Korean and Iran nuclear expansion is to reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles?
When negotiating the New START pact, President Obama had to concede to GOP demands to spend $80 billion modernizing some of the existing weapons systems while negotiating with Russian to reduce their nuclear warheads. Today President Obama is still straddling the fence between the reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and halting nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran. In recent talks, a senior official of the United Nations nuclear supervisory body said that talks in Iran had ended inconclusively and international inspectors had not been given access to a site that they suspect may have been used for testing bomb triggers.
Herman Nackaerts, the deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the discussions “could not finalize” a document that “once agreed, should facilitate the resolution of outstanding issues regarding possible military dimensions of Iran nuclear program.”
With tension growing between Israel and Palestine, and North Korea performing its third nuclear test despite U.N. resolutions prohibiting nuclear programs, President Obama is fighting a huge uphill battle with both GOP and rogue states.
Senator John McCain warns, “They watched us leave Iraq in disarray. They’ve watched us stand by in Syria — and they know we’re leaving Afghanistan. We watch the North Koreans continue to test nuclear weapons and threaten us.”
Delivering a promise
Iran came under new pressure from President Obama in his State of Union address to settle its differences with the West.
“The leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon,” President Obama said.
It appears that the president’s policy moves depending on which country he’s referring to on the nuclear issue. On the one hand, he’s for nuclear missile reduction and on the other hand, the president will use all necessary measures to stop certain countries obtaining nuclear capabilities.