I think this op-ed is much needed. Reminding the world of the importance of the Russian-American relationship is paramount, particularly in the context of this theme, nuclear weapon treaties. Our relationship with Russia has deteriorated but with this unfortunate state of affairs we are playing with fire. Russia, sadly, is capable of doing as much damage to us as we are to her.
The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was an effective deterrent during the Cold War. Nuclear weapon nations knew that a strike against a similarly armed foe would lead to their own destruction so they resisted using these weapons, thankfully. I am afraid though that different logics apply in the post Cold-War era. Brazen politics and miscalculations threaten our fragile world peace. One misstep by a nuclear-weapon state and we all might be in serious trouble. We need diplomacy and forward-thinking more than ever. Lasting peace depends on it.
19
@Anja
Where is the recognition that the Russians cheated on the INF treaty?
2
How often do Republicans in their statements recall with great esteem President Reagan? It was this same President Reagan during his time in office that signed off on the first START. President Reagan declared the goal of having children grow up in a world free of the threat of nuclear war. The actions of President Trump to date put us on a path to repudiate that goal. Even under the terms of New START both parties to the agreement have arsenals that can destroy the world. There is no sane reason to build greater capabilities of that insanity. The children of the world demand better of us.
12
I took courses in nuclear physics and quantum mechanics on my way to a degree in physics years ago. I also wrote a term paper on nuclear non-proliferation (for Systems Science & Math course) in 1978—height of the Cold War. So I know a little about the topic.
For all of my 60 years I wanted to believe that the US was overall interested in promoting world peace. I now know that to be untrue: The US is presently on course to vastly *increasing* rather than *decreasing* the chances of nuclear war. How?
1) Ending the INF Treaty with Russia, which for decades made Europe safer from the threat of a conventional war quickly turning nuclear.
2) Upgrading the targeting on US ICBMs to vastly “improve” (by a factor of 3) their ability to destroy an adversary’s siloed missiles. While to a naive reader this may sound like a good thing, it’s not: The only advantage, practically, is as a first-strike capability, which makes it far more likely there’s a “miscalculation” during a tense exchange—think “Launch or Lose.” This one factor is a main reason for why the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the clock up.
3) The US just recently started deploying so-called “low-yield” nukes on submarines—5 kilotons, or about 1/3 the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Why? The *only* reason is to lower the threshold at which they can—and would—be used. As if 5 kT is OK but 100 kT isn’t?
4) “Space Force.” Does anyone else think weapons in space is a bad idea?
17
After 50 years of the failure of the "nuclear powers" to rid themselves of these terrible weapons as required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it will take more than a "signal to the rest of the world" to save all of us from destruction. We are 90 seconds from midnight. Get rid of these weapons now!
3
Having just read Midnight in Chernobyl, where even a limited accident at a nuclear power facility exposed hundreds of thousands of people to high levels of radiation and left large areas of land uninhabitable, the idea of a nuclear exchange between any two countries is too horrendous to contemplate. Nuclear war is a negative sum game. While there are many potential disasters facing mankind, nuclear war is the one that could kill off most of the human race in a few years (indirect effects could take a while to be felt worldwide. ) There have been a number of times where we have come within minutes of an attack due to human or machine error. It would make great sense to use diplomatic means to decrease the risk, at minimum cost to either country. Are our leaders up to it?
45
Command and Control by Eric Schlosser is also a worthwhile and disturbing read. It goes into great detail on the cold war and nuclear proliferation of the past several decades, military arsenal accidents, and how on several occasions nuclear apocalypse between us and the Soviet Union was prevented only by good luck or skilled diplomacy.
6
@Richard
Your next book should be Command and Control. I'm just finishing it. One of the most prevalent points in the book is setting up provisions in case someone who has mental health issues, is unstable, or just wants to prove he's the big dog. Sounds like someone in the White House and the Kremlin. Scary times where duck and cover is silly. Wish I had a magic wand and make all the nukes go away. Imagine, by John Lennon.
6
@JJ Read it, thanks. Also the Richard Rhodes series on the atomic bomb, H bomb and proliferation .
2
Please tell this to the Democrats who are always using Russia as a club to beat Trump with. I suspect that Trump and Putin would work out a new treaty or extend the old one if only Trump is ALLOWED by the Democrats to do with very important thing.
Otherwise any attempt at rapprochement will be met with screams of "Trump is Putin's man in the White House, let us impeach him right away!
1
Wow, very powerful statement about a weapons class whose radical danger seems to have been forgotten in the global political scrum these days. Pray it is heard.
2
These treaties delude us with the promise of safety. Think of Kellogg-Briand (1928), signed by Germany and Japan, that deluded us into thinking that war was impossible, and thereby undermined our moral and physical readiness.
2
No progress can be made on this until Trump is out of office. His history of illicit compromise for Putin would taint the legitimacy of any agreement and jeopardise the American people.
2
So the fate of the planet is in the hands of a mafia capo and his favorite lieutenant, each with an insatiable desire to assert his influence, and the continued relevance of his nation's war machines, in a multipolar, digital world.
I don't like our chances.
1
I have a Madeleine Albright story. I was in Kosovo last summer. Taking a taxi from hotel in Pristina to airport, the taxi driver drove past one of the many Bill Clinton conference halls, Bill Clinton streets, Hillary shopping malls, so I asked the driver if Kosovars still supported what Bill Clinton and NATO had done for Kosovo. And in his broken English, out of nowhere, he yelled out "We love Madeleine Albright." And then he kissed his hand three times. And then he spent the next 30 seconds telling me how Madeleine Albright will always be a hero in Kosovo. That was the first and only time I have ever heard someone in another country declare their love for any secretary of state from anywhere.
1
"Skilled diplomacy and political leadership"...is how the writers described how the U.S. and the former Soviet Union survived the nuclear dangers of the Cold War. It is risible to think we have that today. Besides of what we think of his mental suitability to be President, Trump will never be a statesman and he is emphatically not a leader. He is not a visionary, and will not proceed in any way outside the excesses of his own ego. He doesn't understand the nuclear triad, but wants more weapons anyway because he thinks more will intimidate whoever is out there. He thinks of missiles like tanks. He is straight out of the 1950's. My one hope is that the man constantly following him with the nuclear codes has instead a suitcase that is empty.
This is a lovely, high-minded essay that fails to confront the reality that we have a truly mentally ill president (his words & acts scream pathological narcissism) with clear signs of neurological breakdown, i.e., dementia (seizure-like spasms during rally speeches repeatedly caught on camera and widely discussed in media--Google it; I was astounded), who is slavishly followed by equally self-serving, callous, anti-social, and destructive appointees and elected representatives.
Hence, that "[o]ur countries survived the nuclear dangers of the Cold War through a combination of skilled diplomacy, political leadership and good fortune"--was truly our good fortune.
And good fortune is all we have left.
Let's all work vigorously to see that America will be voting with hand-marked paper ballots and mechanical counting machines in November. That slip of paper is all we have left between our cherished democracy and a tyranny that would have made mad King George III proud.
New START was signed when (checks notes) Barack Obama was in the White House.
Given that Donald Trump is said to have a real fascination with using nukes, and also given that Trump has been spending his entire presidency so far attempting to systematically erase the entirety of Obama's presidency, what are chances of this treaty being extended?
Magic 8-Ball says: "Don't count on it."
The extension of the New START treaty is doomed from the outset. Why? One side has an incompetent lightweight at its head, and the other has an ambitious, vicious, cunning, ex-KGB operative as dictator, and neither of them want the treaty to continue.
New START is doomed and the GOP will stay silent on the matter.
Trump will dismantle our nuclear program so his boss can be in a better position.
Without verifiable limits on China's development and deployment of weapons, what sense does it make for the US or Russia to limit weapons development?
1
If General James Mattoon Scott is available, I’m sure Donald Trump will bring him aboard as a ‘senior adviser’ and negotiator to hammer out ‘a fantastic deal’ — like the ones we now have in place with North Korea and Iran.
Unfortunately, if ‘The Art of the Deal’ doesn’t work out quite as well as promised, we can’t go Chapter 7, walk away and leave everyone else holding the bag. Nobody will walk away.
These are serious issues explained here. And, perhaps, the most serious issue is this: America has a president, as well as a cult-like circle of followers, who views these issues in terms of how they make him appear to his mulish supporters.
Putin can't wait to begin the New START negotiations, with his very own flunky Trump. Trump can't wait to sell his country, and the west out, for his own personal gain.
1
Trump cares only about appearances, especially how he appears on Fox and how his appearances cement his tough-persona standing with his GOP supporters. It is likely Trump will treat nuclear weapons as the biggest, best way to look tough. He is likely to want more nukes, bigger nukes, and a field test somewhere remote of “just one nuke”. Trump cannot be persuaded, improved or cautioned, because this would appear weak. We must rid ourselves of Trump before he gets rid of us by his foolish posturing and field testing a tiny nuke, you know, to let ‘em know who’s boss. Trump is king of poses gone wrong, which, in the case of nukes, is the fast lane to world-wide annihilation.
Dr. Albright,
I'm a fan of you as well as your timely book: Fascism: A Warning Hardcover – April 10, 2018. (And I plan to give the paperback edition to many people) Maybe you could send a signed edition to Melania and Donald.
It is indeed complete folly to think anyone can win a nuclear war.
Thank-you for your great service to our nation.
1
You seem to be expecting a nuanced understanding of the situation from a man who once asked if we could nuke a hurricane......
Unfortunately Trump will not pay any attention to this column. He could care less about Nuclear Treaties.
Remember whaat he said? "We have Nuclear Weapons why don't we use them?"
1
Trump doesn't want to make the world more secure. He's a sociopath. Does no one remember what he said to Chris Matthews?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.
TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?
This fool has no sense of the danger of starting a nuclear war and less scruples about murdering millions. I honestly think he's so evil the idea appeals to him. This is a man who's so vindictive that an entire chapter of one of his books is entitled "Revenge."
If this psycho launches nukes, I hope the last thought of every one of the spineless, criminally irresponsible Republicans who enabled him will be: "I could've stopped this!"
Ha, ha, ha and ha! What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man. The Earth's nations massive collection of weapons of mass destruction will not protect us, what will is the self interest of those on top. The leaders and super wealthy are continuing to accrue to themselves all the limited resources of this small, but unique world. It's really in their personal self interest not to kill the very golden goose that they love. What is the gain for them to do so? Meanwhile, the religions of the world continue to proclaim, breed more and more humans. Use up all the resources and go directly to paradise. Talk about folly!
1
Re: "...Two former diplomats, from Russia and America, call for extending the nuclear arms limitation pact called New START, to make the world more secure..."
From a human P.O.V., nuclear war IS a mass_extinction event! Thus...it SHOULD, BE a party_plank requirement for ALL candidates to create / sign / implement / confirm new, and/or, updated Anti_N.-W.M.D. treaties;
Trump's withdrawal from the Iran_Multi_Party, (anti_nuke), treaty is a stain / a grotesque risk increase / moronic!
Trump is Putin's puppet, so whatever Vlad wants, he gets at this point with the help of the Republican Party.
Mr Ivanov should tell his president to keep flattering ours. Trump wants a Nobel prize (because Obama, natch.) Putin should put on a big show, dinner, the whole works. And then a gigantic signing ceremony in Geneva or a similar venue where Trump can brag.
What worry do we have from Russia? Now that our President works director for Putin, I have to assume we're save from attack. Heck, at this rate, the US will soon be a Russian colony.
Mad... you are out of the loop. Trump controls what happens. The only way to save anything Obama is to defect trump. And that is impossible with the current state of the Democratic Party. Pelosi and schumer have to go.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Putin is evil incarnate. In fact, he’s nothing short of a mafioso murderer. And Trump? Putin’s lackey. If Putin bats his lashes Trump will bat his back and smile like a dumb lap dog. Try New START? Yes, indeed. But with eyes wide open. We are dealing with two shades of corrupt, $angerous and Machiavellian leaders. One is a devil and the other is an ignorant devil by extension. Whoever the Democratic candidate is he or she must have a 1) profound understanding of Russian viciousness and its voracious appetite and 2) a steel backbone to withstand Russia.
And, I posit that the only Democrat in this presidential race who suffers zero fools and then some ... is Mike Bloomberg. He has the wherewithal to see when and if to punch and where to punch when needed. He can do this with a White House full of capable men and women who are currently strong in the Democratic Party.
(I have a profound respect for Secretary Albright. Thank you Madame Secretary.)
1
With trump in Putin's pocket, I bet he will strike one heck of a deal!
A Mosccw Trump Tower in exchange for deferring to Putin.
I appreciate the authors and agree with their point of view. However, I question whether both country's leaders really want this.
Trump is cuckoo, has just created a Space Force to weaponize space, has abrogated the joint agreement we negotiated with Iran, and seems hell-bent on doing anything which will result in more weapons spending.
Putin has recently boasted about the "hypersonic" missile that he claims only Russia has, and how invulnerable it will make Russia from attack. New weapons technologies are like trains; once they leave the station, they gather speed quickly and are all but impossible to stop. Russia, like the US, has its own military-industrial complex.
I've made no mention of Russia's ongoing and illegal war with Ukraine.
In short, at the "highest levels", both leaders are gearing up for more military spending, nuclear weapons development, and increasing distrust.
The US needs someone other than Trump as President, Russia needs someone other than Putin, and both need to disengage from being on opposite sides of multiple conflicts around the world.
Excellent op-ed. Maybe our Dear Leader will listen to the Russian.
1
The bottom line is that the US has encircled Eastern Europe with numerous ballistic missiles directly pointed at Russia.
One could only imagine the hysteria in DC if Russia surrounded the US with ballistic missiles. Oh, wait I don't have to imagine that because it happened in 1962. it was called the Cuban Missile Crisis and it almost triggered a nuclear war.
And here we are all over again, six decades later and nothing has changed. In fact, there's a NEW Cold War. The arms industry is now a trillion dollar business and the usual war profiteers keeps sucking every last dime from the US Treasury.
And while that financial extraction occurs the corrupt political duopoly tells the public that Medicare-for-All or Free public College is "pie in the sky," the homelessness of 700,000, and lead seeping through thousands of water pipes is just a "normal way of life" and for Americans to suck it up and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
The most astonishing thing, as we hurdle towards Armageddon, nuclear winter, and the end of civilization, is the utter lack of resistance to the madmen/women making The End inevitable.
The loss of public consciousness about nuclear war over the last thirty years is stunning.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/13/world/throngs-fill-manhattan-to-protest-nuclear-weapons.html
Wall Street loves war.
But let’s remember that US warmongering is a pas de deux: Wall Street's armaments industry and mass-media, fka "the press".
1
Russia and the U.S. will again be allies.
China is our common and formidable foe.
Make no mistake. China is striving for world domination, and they don't even know why, but they are still dangerous.
2
Who could possibly disagree? Israel? Perhaps not only would it be wise to implement New Start, but also, as President Putin of the RF has stated, it would be to develop inclusive nuclear disarmament talks with all nations possessing nuclear weapons. The response to this editorial should cast important light upon where wise leadership can be found in a hazardous world which seems to ignore such ameliorating ideas as free trade.
Nuclear war, accidental or intentional, is an existential threat. We must extend START.
2
Agree absolutely with the gist of this article. But it seems very unlikely that either trump or Putin would initiate any real conflict between the two countries as it would appear they're on the same team.
1
But can we trust Trump to work for the U.S.? I'm worried that he's a blackmailed Russian asset, and ultimately will do what Trump tells him to do. I know that at any other point in American history what I just wrote would sound absolutely bananas. But how else to explain Trump's kowtowing in Helsinki? I wish January 2021 would come sooner.
Extending New START would be a reasonable first step.
Do we have any reasonable people in power right now?
There’s something to be said for sanity generating calm and peace (in a person or the world) versus madness generating chaos and war (in the same).
We’ve got to restore the former in this land and in the world. And avoid the latter.
1
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump is unlikely to take the initiative in this, as he will no doubt claim he can make a better treaty. In addition, we don't know what sort of deal he's made with Putin in his off-record meetings.
1
This article while very well meant assumes that Trump and Putin want an arms deal. After all it is the arms industry that feeds both countries and Trump is helped politically by pretending that Trump is his enemy and visa versa. If this were a normal world pre Trump this article would be right on point, but it is not and the state of the world suffers.
1
The pace of development in new classes of supersonic rockets would seem to make this even more of an urgent consideration, as essentially no one has the means/technology to intercept these in-flight.
Is a bi-lateral agreement meaningful though? Doesn't China need to be in the mix also?
2
China's nuclear weapons should have been addressed, at least, since this is one reason Trump gives for not making agreements with Russia.
1
Right now, the most important thing to do is extend New START. Russia has indicated, at the highest levels, its willingness to do so. All that President Trump needs to do is agree.
Given the quid pro quo is attractive enough all things are possible, with Trump.
2
Does Putin really consider the US under Trump to be a threat? Hardly seems likely.
And Putin seems more interested in expanding Russia than in peace.
2
"The relationship between Russia and the United States has been mired in crisis for much of the past decade."
..... and that actually has little to do with nuclear arms treaties between the US and Russia or any other arms agreement between the two countries. But I suggest it has much to do with the US policy toward Iran.
While he was campaigning in 2016 and later as the US president, Mr. Trump was signaling his strong desire to improve US-Russian relationships. He wanted a "cooperative" relationships with Russia, apparently for a single purpose: for Russians to acquiesce with regime change in Tehran.
In fact, in more than one occasion, Trump implicitly offered removal of US economic sanctions on Russia in exchange for Russian collaboration with the US on Iran. And it was not an accident that when Russian ambassador to the US visited the White House, he was carrying the book: "Going to Tehran".
The notion that such a "deal" was possible was undoubtedly planted in Trump's head by the Israelis. It was designed to appeal to Mr. Trump who was eager to demonstrate his ability to strike "deals" that others could not. And that may also explain Mr. Netanyahu's many trips to Russia in the last four years.
Putin has made it clear that Russia has now its own Monroe doctrine. Under no condition he would allow a pro-American regime in Iran, Syria, or Turkey. Not only that, if the US attempts to invade Iran, Russia will join Iranians in a military conflict against the US.
2
The question of extending new START should be front and center in the 2020 election.
44
@MKR
That assumes there will be televised debates between Mr. Trump and his Democratic challenger. That, I believe, is a big assumption.
The fact is, contrary to his claims, Mr. Trump knows very little about any subject. And it is doubtful that his uncle, who used to teach at MIT, has departed any knowledge to him, genetically or otherwise. But he is smart enough to know that he will be everyone's laughing stock if he participates in a serious debate on any subject involving facts and figures; be it economics, environment, or US foreign or domestic policies.
In 2016, he was an outsider. So it was acceptable for him to discuss only issues for which he was prepped, and to answer in generalities. This time the US public will not accept that. So, my guess is that he will look for an excuse not to participate in any debate.
May be he would say the Democrats "are so vicious that they will be twisting anything I would say". May be he would say: "They wanted to impeach me. So, I have no intention of participating in their debates".
5
It's nice, in theory, to just say "extend START". The problem is Russia doesn't want to play by the rules. That's why we walked away. It's pointless to extend START with Putin in power.
6
@Kyle I think you are confusing treaties. We walked away INF treaty last year. That was the treaty Russia wasn't following. Russia is still complying with START.
21
@Z
Maybe they are and maybe we just haven't caught them yet.
1
@Kyle And Trump.
I can understand why Putin no longer wants to abide by this arms limitation pact.
And when it comes to Trump's greed, and Mitch McConnell's greed, I can understand why neither of them actually care about our allies, or this country for that matter.
Trump is too myopic in scope and inept to think more than 5 minutes into the future, and immediate gratification is the name of his game. That's why he's filed for bankruptcy a half-dozen times and have had triple that amount in failed businesses. He has only one concern - more. He wants more, like some cheap overblown criminal who acts tough just so long as he has at least 6 or so bodyguards he can hide behind.
He thinks that makes him look "impressive" and that this behavior of his is admirable.
And his sycophantic senators in this GOP encourage him to think and behave that way.
And, speaking of money, have any of you Trump supporters in this GOP senate even noticed how much you've been running up the deficit during Trump's occupation of the oval office?
That isn't your real estate. It's ours.
1
The weapons may have changed and the people at the table may have as well. But the consequences have not. The use of even one nuclear warhead will result in full scale nuclear war. Trump would retaliate in a second. Not with a tit for tat response but a 'wipe them off the face of the earth' mentality. The real problem here is the history is fading. People today have no concept of what went on in Japan when we used nuclear weapons against them. People have forgotten the Holocaust and now anti-Semitism is on the rise. The search for the cheapest labor possible directs us closer to a slave economy , not further away. The same mentality that lead to the development of these weapons is leading to their resurgence. And when the leaders of the major powers are sociopaths who play a zero sum game, God help us all.
44
It's sad to see people bashing Trump in the comments. The Obama admin knew the Russians were cheating on the INF and did nothing. Trump called the Russians out and yet he's the bad man.
1
@James you've confused treaties. Reread the article. Better, read the treaty (START).
Waiting for a better deal is a recipe for disaster? This administration owns the cookbook for disaster.
Why would anyone use nuclear weapons nowadays when you can so easily destroy a country with cyber warfare, manipulation of currency, super flu, shutdown of electrical grids etc. With over seven and a half billion people and Mother Earth starring us down we need all the terra cotta out there.
2
Anyone would be foolish to believe that Trump would approve an extension to an existing treaty. He will always believe that he can get a better "deal" than any that have come before.
2
What About that new Russian supersonic missile?
1
Ms. Albright...
I fear your plea will fall on deaf ears.
Just imagine, here’s the recipe for Donald and Vladmir to share the Nobel Peace Prize!
1
Thank you Secretary Albright for your boice of reason.
A visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial within the first year in office by all world leaders should become an expectation and valued tradition. The realty of nuclear war is laid bare.
3
Yet another crucial reason that Trump must not have another term.
Trump has pretty much said he was eager to use nukes to demonstrate US might—ideally on some Muslim nation like Yemen or Iran. He’s clearly not constrained by treaties. So why would Putin even bother unless he sees it as a way to weaken America or the EU.
You don’t make deals with liars and thieves. The US is both
The risk of nuclear war between two nuclear armed countries is small - not because of treaties but because the cost to both sides would be horrendous.
The real nuclear risk is from a non-state actor like Al Qaeda if they get a nuke. MAD doesn't work if you don't have another state to retaliate against. That's where we should be focusing our efforts, and not on meaningless treaties like START.
2
@J. Waddell Which is why its important that there are less weapons that need to be secured in the first place. Russia is not doing a terribly good job and maintaining and securing its arsenal.
4
@J. Waddell
All things being equal, there is a bit of merit to your argument. The more recent nuclear states - India, Pakistan, North Korea - tend to have leadership that might be best described as "flaky" while the US and Russia have tended to have knowledgeable leadership with experience in managing difficult problems willing to consult expert advice and cautious about the unsolvable problems nuclear war would present.
Trump's occupation of the Oval Office has substantially undermined that equation.
Calling START meaningless embraces the Trump line that he's got something better cooking but unless there is a fully fleshed out alternative ready to replace it will at a minimum lead to a costly new arms race that will undermine rather than bolster American national security. Like nuclear weapons, such atavistic approaches are great at destroying what we enjoy now, but are very unlikely to construct a better, less costly alternative to nuclear war..
Just saying...
Whatever minor merit Trump's argument that he is a wizard of negotiation may have, it has no place in the problem of nuclear arms. Trump can't script this reality show nor change the fact that nuclear war amounts to national suicide for those contemplating it
1
Noble thoughts and words Ms. Albright but the trump foreign policy is to tear the house down. Trump does not create he destroys and takes no prisoners. Besides who knows what he has concocted in his private conversations with Putin so long as he feels that he will personally gain. He has no loyalty to his country or its people, they only exist for him to be used and abused.
5
@Steve
Don't blame Trump bc the Russians cheated on the INF treaty which put the validity of this treaty in doubt.
2
@James
And trump has done nothing about it and refuses to have any further discussions about arms reduction. trump is Putin's poodle.
1
How is it that climate advocacy has become a giant multi-billion-dollar industry at the same time that arms control is being completely ignored? I'm begging the activist class to start devoting the same attention to nuclear weapons reduction as they do to climate change. You won't hear it from Greta Thunberg, but the consequences of war with modern weapons are obviously far more awful and immediate than the results of any carbon emissions. Folks in the climate movement need to get their priorities straight. It's fine to advocate for better climate policies, but not while you're ignoring the biggest threat of all.
4
Government created the dangers of nuclear weapons, weapons so powerful that using them always harms innocent people.
The rulers have shown that they are evil enough to use them. They are making ones with smaller yields to be more usable.
Madeleine Albright, Igor Ivanov and numerous foreign ministers want us to trust wise rulers with treaties to safeguard us from government and its nukes that it endowed, bestowed and bequeathed to all future generations.
Is that their best offer? We should inform the rulers who feel entitled to rule over all of us, "Your services are no longer required." We need to get rid of them and their bombs.
20
@Mr Mahmoud
Truman was a hero, not evil. The bombs saved millions of lives in China, as well as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.
3
Under Trump the signing or shredding of treaties has NOTHING to do with substance and is always about showmanship.
2
It is critical to renew and revive all the nuclear agreements between the US, Russia, and other nations including Iran. Trump’s dismantling of two of the agreements reveals his total ignorance of the history of the nuclear arms race and his incompetence in his failure to realize the importance of regulation and limitation for world peace and security. It is folly to have Trump have any say in the future on this issue and that alone is grounds for defeating him and his Republican enablers in the next election. Trump is devoid of wisdom and has the temperament to consider nuclear war imaginable and winnable. He is a man who has no compassion for human suffering and believes that being strong
means negating nuclear devastation as an impossible scenario.
Ms. Albright's bonafides do not generally lend credibility to what assertions in diplomacy she may make concerning bi-lateral arms control. They include her general sanctioning of Nato bombing of the former Yugoslavia; and her casual dismissal of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which the the UN later said caused the deaths of 576,000 Iraqi children. Albright famously said "it was worth it" in a televised interview with 60 Minutes.
The press covered recent college protests accusing her of war crimes, and crimes against humanity: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daum-madeleine-albright-scripps-20160512-column.html
Her private consulting firm reflects her continued personal ambition to insert herself in foreign affairs where she still pines to be seen and remembered as a 'female Henry Kissinger.' Like him, her personal allegiances in the Middle East, including in the Clinton administration, accelerated regional violence and instability. It is difficult to discern what her motivations are here, except to be somehow affiliated in a historical fantasy of world impact that defines her clinical personality, but which eludes her actual resume.
4
The best proof that the Russians really want a treaty WAS their willingness not to cheat on past treaties like the INF.
1
Ms. Albright and Mr. Ivanov speak about the need for “wise leadership”. That won’t be found in the White House the remainder of this year. While waiting until January 20, 2021 is not ideal, it may be our only chance, and then only if Americans rise to the occasion and vote for a sane Democrat in November.
1
Every nation should have nukes. Nuclear weapons is what guarantees rogue state like the Trump regime and Russia does not violate a smaller nation's sovereignty.
These are welcome thoughts from Madeleine Albright and Igor Ivanov.
It is ironic that the president seems to want to deepen his friendly ties with Putin, but that such deepening does not include the obvious opportunity to extend START and move toward further nuclear weapons reduction.
But citizens must demand that the nations of the world go much further. A permanent conference of the nuclear powers, open to all interested non-nuclear parties (which in effect means all nations), should be convened to establish common ground on the basis of the potentiality of nuclear winter, to build virtuous circles of trust and communication, and to share the vision that Bernie Sanders articulated the other night in the NH debate: a world that has given up the stupidity and futility of war in favor of coming together to address the revitalization of a withering planet.
Such a conference should remain in active session until the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals have dropped precipitously, and all the nuclear powers have signed and ratified the UN resolution outlawing the construction and deployment of these strategically useless death-devices.
Save your breath.
Trump doesn't care about anything that does not enrich him or ends up with a new hotel chain.
You should really understand by now that the only way to get a corrupt politician to do what is right is by bribing him.
3
@Captain Nemo The article, by two experts on the subject of nuclear control, strongly supports the extension of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which expires on Feb. 5, 2021. We should have nothing to worry about-our (new) president will 'do the right thing'.
Communication between Russia and the United States has not been cut off: Putin tells Trump what to do and Trump does it.
3
The Trump Administration's abrogation of the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the irrational threat to kill the New Stategic Arms Reduction Treatym NewSTART has lead us to edge of calamity.
As Ambassador Albright correctly notes, NewSTART reduced the number of nuclear warheads in the U.S. and Russian arsenals by more than one-half. Still, more than 16,000 (!) nuclear warheads remain in the U.S, and Russia, the detonation of only one hundred of which could terminate life on Earth.
The expiration of NewSTART will bring certain calamity, and cost trillions of dollars in wasted expenditures for re-engineered, deadly nuclear weapons.
We already find ourselves in nuclear "brinksmanship". Only an insane and lethal future of nuclear proliferation awaits if NewSTART is not renewed.
Mark Muhich
Sierra Club Nuclear Free Core Team
Jackson MI
31
@Mark Muhich
"Edge of calamity", really?
2
@James
Oh, look! someone who thinks he can trust that "stable genius!_
1
@James Hello, James, Yes. How else would one describe thousands of megatons of nuclear warheads on hair trigger alert? (ps. a megaton is a million tons of TNT!)
1
I don't even trust OUR regime to hold to New START, let alone the one that foisted ours on us. Both need to change, or be changed, to credibly pull back from so close to MAD-o'clock.
Failing that, we must provoke the loser to ragetwit as often as possible, lest he actually work.
Ain't gonna happen with Trump or any GOP president in office. Look at his Space Force as an indication of his thinking. Even Obama was talking about spending $1 trillion over 10 years to overhaul our arsenal of nukes. We remain on the hair trigger that Ellsberg described in his recent book, "The Doomsday Machine."
check the doomsday clock it has moved up to I believe one minute before midnight.
This is the best advice on international relations that I have encountered in a very long time. Accordingly Trump will support it only if he needs an October surprise.
Add nuclear arms treaties to the list of climate change, health care and gun control that are top issues for the November election. Returning to the world of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction, is reckless and insane, but that's what this White House is leaving us with.
10
Fermi Paradox...we are on course to prove it out.
2
Last year, both Russia and the US withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Since then there had been accusations and recriminations on both sides. It’s unclear whether this bard trading served as a prelude to an ego trip Trump and Putin indulged in, which would ultimaely allow them to emerge as the white knights of the 21st century.
The Americans said they pulled out of INF because of Russian violations. But the Kremlin denied breaching the treaty’s terms, accusing the US of blocking Moscow’s 2018 proposal to reaffirm a 1985 joint statement by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that said “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Russia has said the US also appears reluctant to extend the New START treaty, the last remaining arms control deal between the two countries, which expires in 2021. It has expressed a willingness to extend the treaty for five years. But Trump wants to pull China into the negotiations, citing China’s major defence build-up. He seems see China posing a bigger threat than Russia, and he believes he’s good at making sweeping deals.
7
This New START is a pragmatic necessity.
Any weapon can be lethal ..nuclear weapons
are that to the nth degree.
There is also a Treaty the UN advanced that
many countries, states and cities have already
signed. The Ban on Nuclear Weapons or the
Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons
was passed on 7 July 2017 with the goal of leading
toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
The START agreement is no less than a requirement.
10
Everything Trump has done in office benefits Russia, and that includes tearing up treaties. All we have to ask is does it please Putin -- and why?
9
There's reasons why it the treaty went south, Deployment of low yield nuclear weapons near Russia's border. Putin was under the impression we promised not to do so. Arming Ukraine and installing a pro American government there just so our capitalist can pick it clean isn't my idea of getting along with Russia.
I don't see any of the Democrats changing course with Russia not after three years of alleged collusion and Schiffs elevation of Ukraine as our most important ally. One lie comes after another. It's hard to back out of lies, no matter where they lead, isn't it?
@JoeG Yes, and that is exactly what Trump is trying to do. To get us out of lies and shibboleths. If Ukraine is an ally, where is the treaty of alliance? It's not in NATO.
@JoeG
dems want to change course with Russia by protecting our elections. however the bill passed by the house (bipartisan as well)is sitting in Moscow mitchs' circular file. that is one way to protect our democracy. not just to protect our elections against Russia but other countries as well.
2
@Jgarbuz
trump has kicked Ukraine to the curb. they are our ally but zelensky stated they cant rely on u.s. as taking their interests against Russia (since trump believes that Russia didn't do anything to our elections which is a lie)
What are the verification functions institutionalized
in the New Start treaty ?
1
I'm confused. Trump stated early on that we should be on more friendly terms with Russia, but that hasn't led to any agreement on limiting nukes. Why not?
Is it possible that he needs cover now in a more antagonistic attitude, as he appears to be a beneficiary of Russian disinformation in his election, and (likely?) re-election?
13
The history of arms control treaties is a history of ineffectiveness. (Consider the naval arms control treaties of the 1920's and 30's.) Countries follow such treaties when it is in their interest to do so, and violate them as soon as it isn't. START only put in writing what Russia and the US intended anyway. I doubt that either Russia or the US would do anything different whether START is renewed or not.
Russia and China are developing hypersonic missiles that pose a greater threat than the nuclear weapons allegedly limited by START. This opinion piece might be relevant if the authors proposed a treaty limiting those weapons. But it's not in the national interest of either Russia or China to limit these weapons so it won't happen.
3
@J. Waddell Hypersonic nuclear weapons would be covered by new START for Russia, since it limits launchers and weapons regardless of type. (China is not a signatory). There is no realistic defense against nuclear weapons - the must all be banned by the UN Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons and eliminated.
Just because this opinion piece is well-reasoned, informed, and in the NAyT is reason enough for Trump to rashly reject treaty extension. Every Democratic candidate should pledge to extend and to negotiate further arms control agreements urgently.
20
The Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock now set at 100 seconds to midnight. Why? "The failure of world leaders to deal with increasingly likely threats of nuclear war, such as the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between the United States and Russia as well as increased tensions between the US and Iran, and the continued failure to combat climate change. This is the clock's closest approach to midnight, exceeding that of 1953 and 2018." Any questions?
Putin apparently wants more nuclear weapons (and more sophisticated ones at that). Putin also apparently controls Trump. Any questions?
Americans: Don't forget to free up some time on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 to vote. This will be an important election. For both you and your children.
58
As long as the nuclear weapons rogue nations Israel, India and Pakistan stand outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT) this Cold War era nuclear arms limitations deal doesn't really matter.
As long as China, France and the United Kingdom aren't part of this effort to limit and eliminate any nuclear weapons then this doesn't matter.
As long as Iran, Japan and North Korea are treated separate and unequal by America, Europe and the world community this nuclear weapons farce must stop.
While America and Russia have about 95% of the world's nukes they don't have enough strategic nuclear weapons targets worthy of that many weapons in order to insure their mutually assured destruction.
2
@Blackmamba So because there are other nuclear issues in the world and because the US and Russia already have too many nukes, you argue that a treaty which limits their nuclear stockpiles is pointless? Don't let the perfect, be the enemy of the good. The treaty does solve some problems, so it does matter and should be kept.
1
And as long as Trump and Putin are at the helm, anything is possible
@Blackmamba There is no realistic defense against nuclear weapons - they must all be banned by the UN Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons and eliminated.
The characteristic that separates humans from their primate ancestors is their incredible scientific achievement. Unfortunately, humans appear to remain governed by their baser instincts, with chest-beating displays of aggression to gain alpha-male status. Evolution has done us no favors.
9
@Richard
Evolution favors those that leave more offspring--the name of the game is getting your genes into the next generation. Yes, our baser instincts come into play, whether or not we admit it. Propensities like deception are shared by many other organisms--reasoned thought verifies this.
Now, it is very important to recognize and acknowledge your assertions because only we can control these natural tendencies.
Competition is universal. The most intense completion is among species because they are competing for the same resources.
This is where nuclear proliferation comes in. We all share the same planet and its finite resources. As resources dwindle due to climate change, over population, etc., competition intensifies. No nuclear power will allow their nation to be taken over by another country without deploying all means they have to resist being taken over. As countries develop nuclear capabilities, more weapons of mass destruction are added to this insane race.
Unfortunately, the political will to end the proliferation of nuclear weapons does not exist between superpowers. The development of hypersonic missiles demonstrates this. Whoever does not develop hypersonic weapons will be at the mercy of those that do. Thus, we are driven to compete.
Treaties like New Start are important because they call on our ability to cooperate rather than our tendency to compete. Cooperation must become a part of our nuclear arsenal.
We are a curious species.
2
Dr. Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, and Igor Ivanov, Russia's Foreign Minister pleading together to restore mutual confidence and end the relationship crisis between our two countries. The 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ends one year from now. The US and Russia must extend the treaty to spare our world nuclear brinksmanship by too many countries owning nuclear capability, Military weaponizing in the US and Russia is no substitute for working for world peace through non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. International diplomacy and renewing the treaty are the only ways to avoid a nuclear Amerigeddon in our trumpian militarized world.
15
Well, sure, makes sense to me.
But then, I am a nobody living in Oregon and I don't get a voice in this.
And I really, really don't think the people who do vote on these things are listening to pleas for sane behavior...
The Trump cult showed me all I needed to see in the State of the Union Speech, when they chanted "four more years".
To my way of thinking, the oligarchs in Russia are like, are are linked with, the oligarchs who are running and profiting from war here in the US, they see nuclear war as detrimental to the lifestyle of the very rich and Putinesque.
I hope.
Hugh
12
@Hugh Massengill
I so wish the Times had an edit window of an hour or so, for those of us who reread our comments but miss the fact that for whatever reason, we made less than perfect sense.
Hugh
There is a new reality in the world since Mrs. Albright did her great work. The US is now a war mongering nation lead by authoritarian oligarchs who want other nations to pay tribute to them for supplying mercenaries to their needs. There are secret talks between Putin and djt that involve giving up the Ukraine to Russia for private businesses for the trump and kirchner businesses.
The US political leaders want to use tactical nuclear weapons in Iran as a trial run to confront China in the future. They are definitely not wanting to limit these capabilities in any way, especially a treaty that limits the exploration and production of these weapons. Besides, there is much profit in the weapons industry and nonnuclear weapons manufacture is starting to lag a little so it is time to escalate to nuclear.
You did a good job Mrs. Albright, but you have been voted out of office by a warring people and your words means nothing. Only the actions of a violent republican cult matter now.
We can change this in November.
32
@kirk
If you would put your Trump Derangement Syndrome aside for 30 seconds, you would realize that what Ms. Albright is advocating is a fatuous and awful idea that would make America weaker and much less safe.
Russia is a weak country with a small economy that cannot prevail against the US. China is a rising country that is getting ever stronger economically, technologically, politically, and militarily. China is capable of dominating the US, especially in the South China Sea where most of the world’s important shipping lanes are.
China RIGHT NOW has precision missiles (DF-21) with a range of 9,300 miles, that flies at 25 times the speed of sound, that can reliably sink US aircraft carriers and take out US air and naval bases in Japan, Guam, Korea and Hawaii. An effective defense against the DF-21 isn’t even on the horizon.
America cannot afford to be bound by a treaty with Russia that impairs its ability to fight and defend against China.
The START treaty might have made sense in a bipolar world with the USSR 28 years ago, but that world is long gone. China, not Russia, is now the major threat. Why give China the advantage?
An arms limitation treaty that does not also bind China makes zero sense. China would never agree to such a treaty.
The START treaty is an anachronism that is no longer relevant in today’s world. It would weaken, not strengthen, America. START needs to go away.
9
@JTS There is no realistic defense against nuclear weapons - the must all be banned by the UN Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons and eliminated.
2
"Our countries survived the nuclear dangers of the Cold War through a combination of skilled diplomacy, political leadership and good fortune." - Well, given that Trump eliminated all professional diplomats with any skill from the state department and that he cannot even spell political leadership, our only hope is luck. A very disconcerting thought.
63
These voices of sanity may be whistling in the wind as Trump laughs. A nuclear deal with Russia has as much a chance of success as one with Iran or China. Thanks to the authors for trying, but unless Trump smells money or political advantage, he won’t even give it a glance....excepting if Putin really wants it.
23
One important factor was not mentioned in this discussion: China.
Unlike the situation 28 years ago when the original START was negotiated, China is now a major world power: economically, technologically, politically and militarily.
China’s DF-41 missiles can deliver multiple thermonuclear or conventional warheads from distances of up to 9,300 miles, fly at speeds up to mach 25, and can be launched from fixed and mobile platforms. These missiles can sink an aircraft carrier with high precision from great distances. There is, at present, no effective way to defend against these missiles and none is expected in the foreseeable future.
Because of the DF-41, US aircraft carriers, which are an important component of America’s armamentarium, are vulnerable and useless in the South China sea.
Russia has an economy less than 1/15th the size as America’s (or China’s) has little or no growth potential, and cannot sustain or prevail in a major war against the US. Russia is therefore not a major threat. China, in contrast, is a major and growing threat.
Does it make any sense for the US to bind itself with an arms limitation treaty that China is not bound by? Definitely not.
11
@JTS
While China is a familiar target of arguments that suggest they represent an unregulated threat to the US, the facts on the ground suggest that China leans on its missile forces as a deterrent, not the basis for the sort of first strike capability that the US and Russia created in the Cold War and still sustain.
What China is doing is modernize its strategic forces so they are more reliable in assuring MAD continues to be a disincentive to war. The numbers of Chinese missiles show no sign of the sort of enormous expansion that would place them at the table with Russia and the US. Considering the costs that would be involved in such a break-out scenario, the Chinese seem to want deterrence rather than a new arms race.
Even should an expansion of Chinese forces take place, it doesn't alter the fundamental issue that nuclear weapons aren't really very useful in the sense that weapons are usually considered within, whether or not they have military utility. Because the costs of nuclear war are so imposing and certain, nuclear arms really amount to a suicide pact in virtually all scenarios against a nuclear opponent. Their only viable use is against nations that don't possess them, something that would be abhorrent to world opinion.
But any use beyond the most limited vs an unarmed foe faces inevitable global fallout that would make worries about who's "leading" moot. Bomb someone else and we will suffer here regardless of other factors. No Trump spin can alter that.
6
@JTS : There is a big difference: the Chinese leadership is rational and responsible, while ours and Russia's are far from it.
1
Good points to demonstrate we need a more thoughtful approach to nuclear weapons than currently at hand. Trump's ignorance of the basics of foreign relations is on ample display whenever he reacts to questions about nuclear weapons by implying he would simply accelerate into a new arms race that he promises the US would "win."
There are NO winners in a nuclear war.
It need be noted that the statement that the US and Russia are the only nuclear armed nations capable of destroying the world fails to fully account fir the fallout. That's solely about obvious physical destruction from blast and fire, that's a viable assertion in some sense. However, one can never avoid fallout in a nuclear war. It's inevitable.
It's often thought that the massive destruction nuclear war would bring is what threatens life as we know it. No doubt that's a possibility, but even a "small" nuclear war could doom us. via fallouy.
In the AEC's 1949 study associated with Project GABRIEL, the question was raised about how much destructive yield could be dropped on the Russians without affecting the US. Turns out it was a rather small number, 60 megatons, before globally threatening effects start cropping up in comparison to the forces that soon became available. Such strike totals are within the capabilities of most nuclear states, with only North Korea lagging (for now.)
This dissertation explains the often overlooked fallout problem.
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/90554
15
Trump didn’t know what the nuclear triad was and needed it explained to him that using nuclear weapons was a bad idea. There seems to be very little hope that reason and logic will prevail.
79
@Brendan Varley
One could argue that nuclear weapons have fallen under the control of a fanatic already.
5
@Brendan Varley
There is no logic nor reason behind the continued existence of nation state nuclear weapons.
There is no strategic diplomatic and military advantage to nuclear weapons beyond deterrence.
There is no humble humane empathetic reason for nuclear weapons.
More human beings were killed in the American conventional fire terrorist bombing of civilianTokyo in March, 1945 than in the American nuclear weapons terrorist bombings of civilian Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Trump is fine with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran.
2
@Brendan Varley
Especially disconcerting in a world where Putin flies his Bear (Tupolev Tu-95) strategic nuclear bombers near our coastline to wish us a happy Fourth of July.
2
As pointed out, the global scenario has changed. It is no longer a two horse race. The turf is full and there are potential rogue nations in the list. And the ever present danger of these deadly weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and fanatics. A bilateral agreement even with short comings was probably working during the cold war. Involving all with nuclear weapons and capabilities to produce one would be a more effective approach. Remember, it doesn't matter who pushes the button first.
8
Insisting on multilateralizing START is a recipe for no agreement at all. The US and Russian arsenals dwarf those of the other powers. Why would the latter agree to cuts now? START isn't a panacea, and shouldn't be treated as one, but we shouldn't let the best become the enemy of the good here.
20
Under New START, the Russian Federation has deployed four (4) new strategic thermonuclear missile systems -- the Sarmat, the Bulava, the Kinzhal, and the Avangard. The West has not deployed any, and is years away from being able to do so. These extremely threatening deployments are permitted under New START because Russia is retiring older systems and replacing them with new ones of greatly increased lethality. President Putin has boasted that these new offensive systems are able to defeat any present or foreseeable US defenses. The West is now wide open to a surprise attack by these formidable new systems. Thank you, New START. And thank you, Mme. Albright, for leading us to believe that New START would protect us from a situation like this.
5
@James Ribe And what is permitted if there is no treaty? The medium term goal is non-proliferation. It would take years, maybe decades, to establish the diplomatic trust to significantly change the treaty. That groundwork, unfortunately has not been laid. Renew the treaty, and spend the next decade building trust for an even safer, more restrictive treaty for all parties.
34
@James Ribe Don't believe everything (anything?) that President- for- life Putin says. Arms control agreements make sense in an uncertain world.
@James Ribe So what? George W. Bush pulled the US out of the ABM treaty promising to make the it impervious to nuclear attack. No matter what the Russians throw at us, we can shoot it out of the sky. If George said it, it must be true. Thank you, W.