"Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when the number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place." With the Cold War becoming an increasingly distant memory, a substantial majority of Americans, including General Powell, feel that the world would be a much safer place with the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons. It is a central reality that nuclear weapons diminish the security of all countries. Countries that posses them become targets of nuclear weapons because they are considered a threat with a nuclear arsenal. The United States and Russia posses the greatest nuclear stockpiles, and have made attempts to reduce their warhead counts, but have those attempts been sufficient? They currently retain an arsenal of 34,570 nuclear warheads combined, with missile ranges that can reach anywhere in the world. Even though these numbers are shrinking, they still serve as a chilling reminder that nuclear war continues to be a threat even after the end of the Cold War. With the number of countries with nuclear capabilities rising, the United States and Russia serve as role models to these new found nuclear powers in the way they handle the disarming and testing of nuclear warheads. The best assurance to non-nuclear-equipped States regarding the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is the total elimination of those weapons by the countries which posses them. The success of various nuclear disarmament and testing programs can be measured by the actions in nuclear arms development taken by other countries that are weary of the stronger nuclear forces, and by studying the actual statistical reduction of nuclear warheads in comparison to the set goals of these programs.

The first two major programs developed for nuclear disarmament are START I and START II, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties One and Two. Both are intended to strengthen nuclear stability by eliminating those nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia that are most capable of carrying out surprise attacks. The START I treaty was signed on July 31^st, 1991 between the United States and Russia. This treaty did not enter into force, however, until December 5^th, 1994. The goal for both Russia and the United States after START I concludes is to have a massive reduction in nuclear warheads and the weapons that detonate those warheads. After START I the total number of warheads should be reduced to 13,500 warheads on each side. The breakdown of the actual number of each type of warhead can be seen in table 1.1. Within this table it can be seen that both multiple-warhead heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (MIR Ved ICBM) or all submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) are accounted for in this program.

President Bush and Boris Yeltsin signed the START II treaty on January 3rd, 1993. The implementation of START II will ultimately eliminate the most destabilizing strategic nuclear weapons between the two nations. These weapons include all ICBMS and any other MIR Ved ICBMs. The implementation of START II will also result in a two-thirds reduction in the total number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by both countries after the first START program. START II consists of two phases. Phase one is to be completed seven years after START I is first implemented. By the end of phase one, each side must have reduced the total number of its deployed-strategic nuclear warheads to between 3,800 and 4,250. The maximum of each type of warhead is displayed in table 1.1. Phase two is to be completed by the year 2003, but can be completed by 2000 if the United States can help Russia finance the elimination of the weapons. By the end of phase two, each side must have reduced their warhead count to 3,000-3,500.

START I was put into force on December 5, 1994 in both the United States and

Russia, thus setting the date of phase one of START II to be completed on December 5, 2001. This date would sound realistic if both sides could agree on the ratification of the START II treaty. The United States government has approved the treaty, but for almost six years Russia’s parliament has refused it. The reason that the Russian parliament has denied the current START II treaty while the United States has accepted it stems from differing philosophies between the nations of which warheads should be disarmed between the two nations.

The United States agrees with the START II treaty because it believes that the "elimination of ICBMs with multiple warheads" marked the "final repudiation of discredited first-strike strategies symbolized by systems such as the SS-18." The United States has "long regarded these heavy ICBMs as the greatest threat to strategic stability." These heavy ICBMs that the START II program eliminates completes a "twenty-year quest by the United States." The United States considers these weapons to be the most dangerous and destabilizing aspects of the cold war nuclear confrontation. The United States also believes that START II will decrease nuclear forces in a favorable direction, away from large and vulnerable first-strike missiles and towards more stable and less destructive weapons.

Not only does the United States think that the treaty creates a more stable nuclear arsenal for both countries, it also believes that under START II Russia benefits more than the United States does. The theory that Russia benefits from START II more than it does from START I results from the economic condition that the country faces. The U.S. capitalizes from START I warhead counting rules rather than from those of START II, because it would be able to maintain the level of MIR Ved ICBMs and SLBMs permitted under START I, while Russia would be economically unable to maintain that level. Under START II neither side would be able to maintain either warhead, thus, under the current economic circumstances of both nations, Russia would be at an advantage. Only allowing single warheads on a firing vehicle is another advantage that Russia gains by agreeing to the terms of START II. Russia has all ready started preparing a nuclear arsenal with single warhead firing vehicles. START II does not put a limit on the amount of firing vehicles as well, thus creating a better economical situation for Russia if it agreed to these terms. The United States still wants to proceed with START II even though it does not necessarily favor its best interests. The US’s goal is to rid the world of the most destructive nuclear warheads. Mankind, as well as the country’s best interests, is taken into accounts by the United States when dealing with nuclear disarmament.

Even though it seems as if Russia would benefit in agreeing with the terms included in START II, its parliament feels that some of the conditions force Russia into a disadvantaged position. Over the years Russia has depended on its nuclear arsenal to offset Western advantages in advanced conventional weapons. The Russian parliament believes that the START II treaty puts Russia at a disadvantage because the United States has greater advances in non-nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons give Russia flexibility in negotiations against other nuclear armed states and those states which pose a threat by possesing undeclared nuclear weapons. Russia has to compensate for deficiencies in conventional weapons. The MIR Ved ICBMs compose seventy percent of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and, under the provisions of START II, Russia will be unable to retain any of those weapons. Aleksei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Duma Defense Committee of Russia, best sums up the feelings of Russia in regards to the requirements of START II. He states that the provisions of MIR Ved ICBMs would "destroy the very backbone of Soviet strategic forces and operational plans" and would "eliminate the foundation of the Russian deterrent." Not only does Russia not want to rid itself of those weapons, but it cannot augment in its other areas and afford the number of weapons in its nuclear arsenal that the treaty allows. Russia cannot feel safe and afford under the current provisions provided by START II, but a revision of the treaty could lead to a signing by the Russian parliament.

On November 19, 1998 Russian parliament drafted its own version of the START II treaty that would ensure security for Russia. Under this version of the treaty, Russia will be assured financial backing for replacing the nuclear stockpiles that will be destroyed after START II takes affect. This new version also allows Russia to be secure from other nuclear powers. Sen. Richard Lugar said that the conditions presented in this altered treaty are firm and that any changes to it would probably be unacceptable, such as "no nuclear weapons in the Baltics, or something to this variety." A change such as this would cause insecurity for Russia. The fact that Russia has drafted a ratified version shows progress in the efforts of nuclear disarmament, and has caused the United States and other nations to prepare massive disarmament programs.

Because of the progress that Russia has made in ratifying the START II treaty, Congress and other departments of the United States have prepared in various ways for the disarmament of nuclear warheads that fall under the revised treaty. The United States congress is discussing bills that would go into effect on the basis of a ratified START II by Russia, and it is also discussing bills that are based on Russia not ratifying START II. Currently the United States has all ready reduced their nuclear arsenal to seven thousand warheads, and with budget constraints, the Pentagon is pressuring for a disarmament program that would decrease that number below six thousand, as the original START I treaty calls for. The pentagon wishes for these actions to take place, because they will have to pay an estimated $95 million in the next year alone, and one billion the year after that, to maintain the nuclear stockpile that will be scrapped when START II goes into effect. The Navy alone will spend $5 billion between now and the year 2003 to refuel nuclear reactors and install new missiles on submarines that will be dismantled. START II’s ratification would not only rid the world of thousands of horrible nuclear weapons, but will also save the United States billions of dollars that it could spend elsewhere in the defense department or in other programs. The specific programs have not yet been released to the public. Detailing the steps that Congress and the Pentagon will take to reach START I and towards START II levels. The recent progress in ratifying a version of START II in Russia has put pressure on the United States to actually begin the process of cutting funds and disarming nuclear warheads that would be scrapped under the treaty.

The Pentagon and Congress are not the only departments of the United States preparing for the implementation of START II. The United States Air Force is also preparing for the implementation. Under START II, both Russia and the United States are allowed to inspect each other’s nuclear weapons-capable heavy bombers. The purpose of these inspections is to build trust between the countries. Each country can be ensured that both sides are following the guidelines of the treaty. The Minot Air Force Base conducted a mock inspection on August 12, 1998 to prepare for Russian inspections that will occur once the Russians ratify START II. The efforts of the United States shows the commitment it has towards disarming nuclear weapons and decreasing the risk of nuclear war.

The nuclear power of China has always been a supporter of the movement to rid the world of nuclear weapons. China has always stressed friendly relations with neighboring countries and has established bilateral trust with them. China has agreed on a policy with Russia, which states that neither country shall fire nuclear weapons first at each other and that none of their strategic nuclear weapons shall be targeted at each other. China has also taken part in the extension to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in May of 1995. This treaty calls for the continuation of the nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. This treaty also pushes for peaceful use of nuclear energy, and discouragement of the nuclear powers retaining possession of nuclear weapons indefinitely. China wants international cooperation in nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear proliferation, and believes that the key for this to succeed is for the two nuclear superpowers to take action by their own initiative. With the two superpowers making progress towards disarmament, China continues to promote further negotiations between the two nations to further their progress. China’s active role in promoting nuclear disarmament has increased with the progress of the United States and Russia in decreasing their nuclear stockpile, thus showing the influence and positive effects that the two superpower’s actions have on the nations of the world.

The two superpowers have influenced other nuclear powers into signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by providing those nations assurance that they are implementing disarmament programs. The CTBT’s basic obligation is to ban all nuclear test explosions. Nuclear powers often use nuclear testing as a warning that they are a nuclear threat to other countries. These other countries then construct and test more nuclear weapons to keep up with their counter-parts. A person feels safer when he has an equal advantage with his opponent. The same idea holds true for a country, it feels safer when it has the same resources as its neighboring countries. A great example of this process is the Cold War between Russia and the United States. This process that results from nuclear testing, supplies an increase in nuclear weapons, rather than a decrease. With the CTBT, this process can be eliminated. The two superpowers are helping accomplish the goal of every nuclear power signing the treaty by being role models in nuclear disarmament

India and Pakistan have recently conducted nuclear tests that were almost identical to each other. India and Pakistan started the same process that resulted in the Cold War, but with the influence of the UN and the recent accomplishments of the United States and Russia, India has all ready signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and Pakistan is soon to follow. Another Cold War is unlikely to happen, because there is not as prevalent threat in the world due to the two superpower’s efforts and influence. The cost of competing in a nuclear arms race, as demonstrated by the United States and Russia during the Cold War, is tremendous. Keeping a stockpile of nuclear warheads operating would cause these countries, which are currently seeking nuclear power, to be forced into investing a substantial portion of their money towards nuclear arms. From the example that Russia has set forth, these countries realize that it is impossible to keep a decent stockpile of nuclear arms and have enough economic security to keep their nations operating. Other countries have learned from their role models, respect the ideas that these role models have set forth and realize the difficulties these superpowers have experienced in a nuclear arms race. Thus, these countries are following the two superpowers’ lead in their own efforts to implement programs for nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear power Pakistan is participating in pushing the idea of a non-nuclear world by creating conferences and committees set on eliminating nuclear weapons. Despite the recent nuclear tests that Pakistan has performed, the country is very active and interested in eliminating nuclear weapons. Pakistan, with other help, has pressed for the creation of an Ad hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament in the Conference of Disarmament. This group has come together to propose a draft program for the "phased" elimination of nuclear weapons. Pakistan wants to have negotiations that consist of all nuclear and non-nuclear powers. They want negotiations including both types of nations, because they believe "all States have the right to participate in disarmament negotiations." Pakistan believes that the process of a global nuclear extermination can only begin with the willingness of the two nuclear superpowers. Now that the United States and Russia have taken positive steps in decreasing their nuclear stockpiles, Pakistan has become more active in the movement towards worldwide nuclear disarmament

The common consensus of the nations active in the movement toward nuclear disarmament is that the key for the success of a worldwide disarmament is for the two nuclear superpowers to take the lead. The reasoning behind this common idea is that the fear of nuclear war trickles down from the top. In fact, this fear is inversely proportional to the size of a countries nuclear arsenal. This fear creates a sense in each country that they need nuclear weapons to compete with other nations, or at least have other nations rethink about threatening them. Such nations as China try to assure the safety of those countries without nuclear weapons by constructing and promoting treaties that declare all nuclear powers unable to use these weapons on non-nuclear nations, these same nations still feel threatened by nuclear powers. They feel it necessary to develop their own nuclear stockpile. It this chain of events resulting from fear that creates a world threatened by nuclear disaster. It is the United States and Russia that supply the source of this fear that influences all nations below them. Therefore, the responsibility of erasing the threat of nuclear war lies with the nuclear nations and their efforts in disarming heir own nuclear stockpiles.

In all aspects of life, whether it be in athletics or in someone’s business firm, it is the person with the most power or talent who is thought of as the role model for all those below him. Every action is examined and regarded as the right thing to do at that point in time. Michael Jordan is the role model for millions of children. These children study Jordan’s actions and try to mimic those actions thinking that performing those actions will make them a better basketball player or more "like Mike." If he were to get into a fight, kids would think that fighting would make them more like Jordan. This same concept holds true for the nuclear arms race. The United States and Russia are the role models for other nuclear powers. They are looked at as the two most dangerous countries in the world because of their nuclear power. When they are mass producing nuclear warheads, other countries tend to produce more nuclear warheads as well, thinking that increased production will be a reflection of the threat they can present. When the U.S. and Russia cooperate in disarming programs, other countries actively cooperate in disarming measures as well. Role models have a grand effect on those around them. If there is ever to be a world free of a nuclear threat, it is the role models of nuclear powers that must take the lead in the nuclear disarmament movement. The United States and Russia are succeeding in promoting disarmament measures because they are being effective role models to other nuclear powers. The active roles of countries such as China and all others who have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty show a promising beginning to the nuclear disarmament movement and prove that the steps being taken by the United States and Russia are succeeding.

Magazine Sources:

Associated Press. (1998, November). Russia Drafts New Start II Treaty. Washington Post.

Myers S. (1998, November). Pentagon Ready to Shrink Arsenal of Nuclear Bombs. New York Times.

Associated Press. (1998, May). Tracking Nuclear Weapons, Time Magazine. Vol. 151 NO 20

Benson, Summer. (1998). Competing views on Strategic Arms Reduction. Pg 587 (18 pages).

(1998, Oct). Can They Arrange a Cold War? India and Pakistan. Economist. V348, n8088. Pg46

Internet Sources

(1997, November). U.S. Nuclear Weapon Enduring Stockpile. www.enviroweb.org

Akram M. (1996, Oct). Disarmament Measures Should Promote Security For All. www.fas.org

Karns C. (1998, Aug). Minot Conducts START II Mock Exhibition. www.fas.org.

(1996, September). Fact Sheet: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. www.state.gov/global/arms

(1997). Current U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy. www.nap.edu/readingroom/