The new START agreement is principled contract with the state on the fundamental question of principle with the necessary consequences. Having a sense of responsibility implies a rejection of the ideas and exaggerated claims about the benefits and the risks that may arise in connection with the contract. Cool war no more; agreement with Russia in the field of arms control is not related to the prevention of a nuclear holocaust. At stake are other issues of cooperation between Moscow and Washington, including Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear problem of, and trade and investment. At least, most of them are more significant for the 2-states, if agreements on arms control, reminiscent of the past nuclear rivalry. And perhaps they are more significant.
New START agreement, in fact the case, allows both parties to own those nuclear forces, what they need. Russian nuclear arsenal falling; Moscow without a contract would not increase the number of its own nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, this agreement enhances predictability and its verification procedures although they are inferior in comparison with previous agreements, still better than nothing. However, as acknowledged by the administration itself, America already has the means to monitor the nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, and to respond to sudden configuration.
The most best argument in favor of the ratification of the new START contract consists in the following. After the United States and our homeland signed, and then with great fanfare presented his world society, the rejection of this agreement will create a gap in US-Russian relations just when we need the assistance of Moscow's other principal fronts, starting with the tightening of sanctions against Iran .
But despite the optimistic claims of the supporters of the contract, it does not reduce the risk of nuclear war between America and Russia. Such a threat does not actually exist. The contract also does not lead to a severe reduction of Russian nuclear weapons and its advantages in terms of testing are very moderate. Well, the non-proliferation regime will benefit from this contract is not enough. In addition, it would hardly any effect on the calculations and plans of North Korea and Iran.
Since the benefits of the new contract START minor importance for U.S. security, it would be entirely true, as claimed by the Sen. Keele, make sure that it does not lead to significant costs. One of the areas where such confidence really need is missile defense. The administration does not assign much importance statement Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov with the danger of one-sided withdrawal from the contract, calling it a diplomatic routine, and argues that the wording of the preamble to the agreement or in any way limit the acts of America on the deployment of strategic missile defense systems.
But there is one catch. As recognized by one of the representatives of the government, "Our homeland was assured that the administration is not planning anything that could pose a danger of Moscow's nuclear deterrent." Since the Russian favorites may find the wording of the preamble is not legally binding only for President Obama, and to his successors, the demands of Senator Kyl provide the results of negotiations completely justified. Partially slips administration on missile defense may be the result of some kind of nostalgia in the middle of senior managers on non-performing now ABM Treaty. As it paradoxically, but the administration was able to abandon the plan of his predecessors in respect of the third site in Poland and the Czech Republic specifically as a defense contract is not valid. At the moment, the administration of brand new concept of missile defense, based on the sea-based systems — which are prohibited by this contract. It's one thing when the United States is seeking to cooperate with Russia on missile defense — is one hundred percent the interest of both countries. It's quite another when there is a memory that the U.S. is ready to abandon the programs from missile defense. Administration should be at the highest level to refute this possibility by making it impressively publicly and unequivocally.
This contract can not be separated from U.S. plans for modernization of nuclear weapons. Without such modernization of the United States can seriously lag behind, enjoying the illusory sense of security thanks to the contract. The administration promises to modernize the existing nuclear weapon, but does not want to build new nuclear warheads, which many specialists from the field believe a must have.
And in the end, the administration should indicate what steps it means to do so, if the new START treaty is ratified. If the country is serious about reducing nuclear arsenals upcoming 2-states in the long term, it needs to send a signal about their own desire to focus on the operational and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Quite unclear why our homeland remains so large arsenal of weapons — because she certainly does not consider Europe as a danger to their security. A number of other nuclear weapon powers itself is operational and tactical. If administration really wants to set an example, which will contribute to non-proliferation, it should raise the issue of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe at the heart of its own agenda for the period after the entry into force of the new START.
The dialogue between the administration and the Senate on the issue of U.S. nuclear forces is very important, and here we can not act hastily. Although the former defense minister and former minister of Energy James Schlesinger (James Schlesinger), and says to us that in the end the agreement still must be ratified, it also notes that "no way I would not conclude contract of this kind. "Many other leading experts believe that in order to present contract match the interests of the United States, it is necessary to remove uncertainty about the strategic defense and nuclear modernization. Undue haste Senator Kerry (it seems that there is to be managed by the gaze that condemns himself) is not needed and not appropriate. The world's greatest deliberative body is worthy to be given a little more time.