• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Vision Free, or Nuclear Free World?

    Obama and Medvedev sign new START

    The idea of going down the road to “nuclear-zero” is as old as nuclear weapons themselves. Steps were first proposed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by the United States in the aftermath of the Second World War. The plan was rejected by the Soviet Union as the country was already developing its own nuclear weapon covertly.

    Supporters often underscore the moral argument, stemming from the statutory obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It calls upon “ … general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    In nuclear matters, the Obama Administration is operating under the assumption that if the U.S. leads, others will follow. Unfortunately, while the United States and Russia have drastically reduced their respective arsenals since the end of the Cold War, more countries have achieved nuclear status and more still have continued in their quest. The lower number of nuclear weapons, the more unstable the international situation gets.

    The Obama administration entered the office with a nuclear zero agenda. But what are some of the other implications of this policy?

    The effort towards disarmament is not reciprocal for a simple reason – human nature. Unless we change human nature, there will not be agreement or confidence in an international authority capable of verification, enforcement and punishment of states that decide to develop their own nuclear capabilities.

    Given the problem of achieving agreement on sanctions on Iran, which is not in compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty, the challenge presented by the assumption of international cooperation becomes even more striking.

    The New START Treaty contains ambiguous language limiting U.S. ballistic missile defenses. This is concerning because missile defenses are one of the essential pillars protecting the United States and its allies; missile defenses also work to reduce the role nuclear weapons in national security policy. In contrast, Russia is increasing its reliance on strategic forces and this treaty does nothing to reverse the trend.

    Achieving nuclear zero presumes that all the regional conflicts will be solved and international confidence will flourish. This is unlikely. Moreover, mixed signals from Obama’s nuclear posture will likely lead to uncertainty and geopolitical shifts among our allies with the eroding credibility of the U.S. extended deterrent.

    These questions were addressed at The Heritage Foundation’s event How Obama’s Vision of a Nuclear Free World Weakens America’s Security on 16th June, 2010. Distinguished speakers included, Dr. Kim Holmes, Michael Rubin, and Dan Goure, all recognized experts in this field.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Vision Free, or Nuclear Free World?

    1. salix says:

      what he said is correct!

    2. Jason Holmes says:

      Hello,

      My name is Jason. I am a professional blogger who loves to write on financial topics. I'm writing to you because I am currently trying to take my author identity to the next level by supplying informative articles to personal finance bloggers. I don't believe in writing promotional articles, instead I feel informative stuff are something users are most interested in reading.

      I would hereby like to request an opportunity to write a guest post on your site, ofcourse free of charge. You can send me your preferred topic, if any, and I would be happy to write an article on it. I can show you some of my past work that have attracted good number of visitors.

      Anyways, you are doing a great job on with your blog and I'd like to talk to you in person, so I'd be happy if you could answer either way!

      Sincerely,

      Jason Holmes

    3. Leonard in WI says:

      Does anyone know what the impact will be on the deficit, now that we will not be getting the royalties from the gulf and alaskan oil wells? Maybe being such an ideologue makes you blind to reality, but Obama is worrying about all the wrong issues….has anyone figured out the cost of this moratorium? I guess I'm in the Obama wants to tear-down-and-rebuild-the country camp…

    4. West Texan says:

      "How Obama’s Vision of a Nuclear Free World Weakens America’s Security" is akin to how anti-gun folks see a firearm free world. It ain't ever going to happen. The reality is that law abiding citizens who keep and bear arms help to reduce crime. So Mr. community organizer AKA Obama, get your stupid facts straight when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only thing this guy is good at leading is a mob. Don't believe me? Just look at his private enterprise and job destructive track record. And that's just for starters. The Gulf's deep water oil spill will have far less long term damage than Obama and company's foreign and domestic policies do.

    5. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      Whoever said it was wrong to be the biggest and the strongest and the most powerful nation on Earth. Especially a Republic who's very foundation is a Constitution where the nation is ruled by Law, not men, and the Government is limited within very narrow boundaries of power.

      Just because we, the Citizens have allowed over the decades, and century, politicans to cross those boundaries, without reprisal, we are now in the stage of once again taking the power away from the Federal Government and giving it back to our consitution and the States, where it needs to remain.

      No nation ever remained in History from being the weakest.

    6. Pingback: Nuclear engineer degree jobs?No Degree Jobs Oracle | No Degree Jobs Oracle

    7. Pingback: Vision Free, or Nuclear Free World? | The Foundry: Conservative …

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×