THE 鈥渉istoric鈥� treaty struck between the US and Russia last week to cut their nuclear arsenals is not quite what it seems.
The two countries agreed to reduce the number of warheads pointed at each other by two-thirds over the next 10 years. But while everyone agrees that the cuts are a positive step, an analysis by the respected US environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has laid bare the lie that the cuts will finally end the cold war.
鈥淭his treaty will liquidate the legacy of the cold war,鈥� said Bush when he announced the plan. 鈥淚t will put [it] behind us once and for all.鈥� President George Bush is due to sign the treaty with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he makes his first visit to Moscow this week.
Advertisement
But critics say the hype is simply not true. If anything, the treaty will perpetuate the cold war doctrine of 鈥渕utually assured destruction鈥� (MAD) for another 10 years, the NRDC analysis suggests. Bush and Putin will promise to cut the number of nuclear weapons 鈥渙perationally deployed鈥� from over 7000 each to between 1700 and 2200 by 2012. This will leave both countries more than enough firepower to destroy each other.
An NRDC report last year showed that the 192 warheads which can be carried by a single Trident submarine could kill or injure 50 million Russians, a third of the country鈥檚 population. The promised cuts will still leave the US with 10 nuclear armed Trident subs.
NRDC also calculated that 1300 warheads are enough to knock out the key Russian military targets identified by the Pentagon. This is why the Bush administration is prepared to bring the number in service down to 1700, says NRDC鈥檚 Robert Norris. 鈥淭hey are maintaining the mentality of the cold war,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he main institutions and practices that were hallmarks then are enduring into the 21st century.鈥�
Norris argues that Bush鈥檚 real intentions are revealed by his Nuclear Posture Review, completed earlier this year. Rather than seeking to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Armageddon, it describes nuclear weapons as 鈥渃redible military options鈥�, and proposes new nuclear missiles, submarines and bombers over the next 40 years.