GEORGETOWON PROF.: ARGUMENTS FOR FURTHER STOCKPILE REDUCTIONS FLAWED

Arguments for lowering the U.S. nuclear arsenal beyond limits agreed to in the New START treaty are flawed, Matthew Kroening of Georgetown University said yesterday, calling for no further reductions. The Obama Administration is hoping to seek reductions beyond the 1,550-weapon cap on strategic deployed warheads agreed to in 2010 as part of the New START Treaty with Russia. Kroening said a drive for more reductions are based on three arguments—that they would cut costs,  further our nonproliferation agenda and that only a secure second strike capability is needed. “I argue that there’s only one problem—that all three of these beliefs are incorrect,” Kroening said at an event at George Washington University. “I think a more pragmatic assessment suggests that the United States shouldn’t make additional cuts to the size of its nuclear arsenal and should instead make the necessary investments to make sure we maintain a robust nuclear arsenal for decades to come.”  

For example, Kroening researched every crisis between nuclear armed states since 1945 and said he found that “countries that have more nuclear warheads than their opponent are more than 10 times more likely to achieve their goals in a nuclear crisis.” He also said that there is little evidence to support that reductions would further U.S. nonproliferation efforts or result in significant cost savings. “The United States should refrain from making any additional cuts. Rather, we should stop at the 1550 that we promised to the Russians in 2010 and that we should take our time getting down to that number,” Kroening said. He added, “Some may argue that this argument is provocative, but I think that it’s actually quite anodyne. I argue simply that the United States should maintain the status quo. I think that what is provocative, however, is suggesting that the United States should slash the size of its nuclear arsenal to 60-year lows in the face of evidence that doing so would be harmful to our national security.”