For the first time in more than half a century, the world’s two largest nuclear powers are no longer bound by a treaty limiting their strategic arsenals. Last week, New START — the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia — expired.
What does that mean? It means that even countries long considered peaceful and stable, like Canada, are now openly debating whether to break with the post-war consensus and acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
This outcome is no surprise. The arms control community sounded the alarm throughout last year. Their concerns are consistent and grounded: Russia and the United States possess roughly 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, and without a binding arms control agreement, both nations are positioned for renewed competition in strategic forces. After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the drive to reduce — and eventually eliminate — nuclear weapons was strong, producing decades of treaties and norms. Over time, that momentum weakened, leaving us where we are today.
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley has long been skeptical of New START. In a recent email addressing the treaty’s expiration, he wrote, “I remain concerned about the effectiveness of the New START Treaty. I had reservations about the treaty when it was negotiated under President Obama and remain concerned today. From the beginning, the New START Treaty lacks the robust verification mechanisms that previous arms agreements imposed upon the Russian Federation, previously the Soviet Union.” His views reflect long-standing concerns about verification and enforcement.
While we do not agree on every point, Senator Grassley and I have maintained a dialogue on nuclear arms control going back to at least 2009. Where the senator could play a constructive role is in legitimizing concern about arms control beyond the small circle of activists who often take center stage, and into the offices where decisions about war, peace, and federal spending are actually made. I asked him directly to encourage the president to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public proposal to extend New START for one year while a follow-on treaty was negotiated. Perhaps Senator Grassley’s influence is limited. Still, he takes arms control seriously, and that makes engagement worthwhile.
The financial consequences of abandoning arms control are also significant. According to the Congressional Budget Office, current U.S. government plans to operate, sustain, and modernize nuclear forces — and acquire new ones — would cost an estimated $946 billion between 2025 and 2034. The absence of a treaty increases pressure on nuclear states to expand or hedge their arsenals, even as both Russia and the United States pursue costly modernization programs. As nuclear budgets grow, they inevitably crowd out other national priorities.
A renewed arms race would not make us safer. The danger of unconstrained nuclear competition is not confined to Washington and Moscow. In a recent letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Dr. Tim Takaro of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War warned that even a limited nuclear war could leave billions dead and civilization in ruins. Deterrence, he argued, is not insurance — because failure is catastrophic. A world with more nuclear-armed states is not a safer one.
Senate Resolution 323 offers lawmakers a chance to state plainly whether they support renewed arms control or are willing to accept a future without limits. It calls on the United States to pursue new agreements with Russia and to reassert leadership in reducing nuclear risk.
When our collective resolve to pursue arms control wanes, silence itself becomes a choice. This moment calls not for resignation, but for engagement.
~ Submitted as a guest column to the Cedar Rapids Gazette
Journey Home 