On Thursday, April 8, United States President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed an agreement that is meant to reduce nuclear arms by one third.  This new treaty, referred to as the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, will replace the expired 1991 pact, START I, which was intended to dramatically reduce Russian and US nuclear arsenals and impose verification measures in the aftermath of the Cold War.  

Under this ten-year agreement, both sides must minimize deployed strategic nuclear warheads to about 1,550 from the previously allowed 2,200. In addition to this warhead limit, the two world powers must cut their entire quantity of land, sea and air-based launchers to 800 each, and no more than 700 deployed within seven years. Even though this still leaves enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, it is a dramatic drop from the approximately 19,000 both the US and Russia deployed in the midst of the Cold War. Hopefully, this new pact does not set back US defenses against potential adversaries such as Iran.

The two world powers’ commitment does far more than influence other world powers; it also reinforces the legitimacy of the international non-proliferation regime. The spread of nuclear weapons can potentially threaten the common security of all nations. A nuclear weapon in the wrong hands can not only be a danger to the US, but also to other nations. Sophomore Elias Symons commented, “Nuclear weapons should be systematically eliminated. A nuclear war can be the end of humanity.”

Unfortunately, the new START treaty does not protect us from the “loose nukes”

considered as the real threat in modern day terrorism. Attempts by terrorists groups such as al-Qaeda and nations including North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons have been a major concern. To prevent these threats, should world powers gradually eliminate nuclear arms all together, or continue to limit the use of nuclear arms and deny other nations of possessing them?

President Obama emphasized his strategy of conserving these nuclear arms, “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in an interview in the Oval Office. This plan sounds beneficial; however, if one of the world powers (who signed the treaty) attacks the US with biological or chemical weapons, the US will no longer retaliate. This dramatic change in policy endangers the nation’s safety and can change the US position in world affairs.

In the face of international forces, Iran continues to insist that its uranium enrichment program is not to be used as an offense system, but for peaceful purposes.

In fear of Iran’s development of atomic weapons, western powers have not only proposed Iranian compliance with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also for their participation with the new START treaty. Unsurprisingly, their proposals were met with much hostility. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argued at a meeting regarding these issues that the US and other nuclear nations are trying to deny other nations the right to pursue nuclear energy programs.

 The purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is to guarantee national protection against opposing forces, and it is meant to be used as an alternative. Ironically, its existence has maintained peace throughout the hemisphere (primarily a result of intimidation among world powers). However, if in the wrong hands, can lead to dire consequences. Therefore, the limitation and regulation of nuclear arms seems like the best solution to this world issue.