Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- A new phase of U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control negotiations might hinge in part on whether the former Cold War rivals can agree on conventional force reductions in Europe, according to one nonproliferation expert (see GSN, July 19).

Washington is eager to follow up ratification of the "New START" agreement -- signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April -- with a new pact under which Moscow would reduce or eliminate its estimated stockpile of roughly 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

However, Moscow continues to press its interest in curbing U.S. and allied conventional superiority in the region.

"If you ask [Obama] administration officials ... they will say, 'Well, we'd like to go reduce the thousands of tactical nuclear weapons the Russians have,'" said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

"The problem there is while we're interested perhaps in getting rid of those, I don't think the Russians are terribly consumed with getting rid of them," he said during a Monday panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation. "They actually are kind of attached to them. They actually think they're important to their security."

The New START pact limits Washington and Moscow to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads apiece and 700 delivery vehicles each with an additional 100 platforms -- such as missiles, submarines and bombers -- in reserve.

Both sides have characterized the planned reductions as modest -- down from a 2,200-warhead cap mandated by 2012 under an earlier treaty -- to be followed by further bilateral talks aimed at taking additional strategic nuclear cuts, and possibly tactical weapon reductions, down the road.

Hurdles to surmount before the two sides can return to the nuclear arms control negotiating table, though, include a number of issues, such as Moscow's interest in limiting U.S. missile defenses, according to issue experts.

Obama administration officials have indicated interest in addressing the idea of tactical nuclear limits during the next phase of talks, but Russian concerns about Washington's conventional military prowess could pose a daunting challenge to making progress, experts say. The Russian military -- notably the nation's navy -- has been particularly reticent to reduce tactical nuclear warheads when U.S. fighter aircraft, armor and warships maintain a clear technological edge (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2009).

Tactical nuclear weapons are typically short-range arms, such as land-based missiles with ranges of less than 300 miles and air- and sea-launched weapons with ranges of less than 400 miles.

At the height of the Cold War, Washington maintained more than 7,300 such weapons in Europe. Moscow had approximately 15,000 of the weapons fielded in the region in the early 1990s, according to a 2008 estimate by nuclear arms experts Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen.

Over the years, the United States has reduced its tactical nuclear arms deployments in Europe to 200 or fewer, located at military bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, the analysts said.

Sokolski said senior Obama administration officials anticipate the United States might have to achieve a new Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty prior to winning any Russian agreement on additional reductions in tactical nuclear forces.

The first such conventional forces accord -- concluded at the end of the Cold War after years of negotiations involving nearly two dozen nations -- capped heavy armor and aircraft deployments in Europe and mandated the destruction of excess weapons.

Moscow in 2007 suspended its participation in the CFE agreement and has pushed for a renegotiation that might increase its flexibility in moving troops and equipment, following harsh Western criticism of its military actions in Georgia and Moldova. Meanwhile, Russia has bristled at NATO enlargement over roughly the past 10 years, and could use conventional-force negotiations as a forum to seek limits on Washington's plans for missile defense installations in the region.

"The first time we tackled the conventional military balance [it] took over a decade of talks to get to 'yes,'" Sokolski said in a telephone interview yesterday.

A CFE Treaty revision might be accomplished more quickly, but "probably would take more than 10 weeks and probably more than 10 months," he said at the Heritage event.

An Obama administration official acknowledged that Moscow is concerned about conventional force levels, but insisted the matter remains on a track separate from tactical nuclear dialogue.

"We see no direct link between discussions aimed at updating conventional arms control agreements in Europe and follow-on nuclear arms reductions discussions with Russia," the senior official told Global Security Newswire on Monday on condition of not being named. "However, we note that Russia justifies its large tactical nuclear weapons inventory as a counterbalance to Western conventional force capabilities."

Yesterday, a Russian Embassy official sounded a distinctly similar theme.

"There is actually no direct link between the CFE Treaty and possible discussions on the tactical nuclear weapons," said the Russian official, also speaking anonymously. "There is no direct link between these two issues."

In fact, it appears that following New START's entry into force, Moscow would be prepared to discuss tactical nuclear forces with Washington -- but only in the context of broader discourse about all military deployments in the region, to include both conventional and atomic arms, government officials told GSN.

Sokolski also asserted this week that the Obama administration is so consumed with the ongoing U.S. Senate debate over New START ratification that there has been little serious planning for what related objectives it will pursue next.

Obama laid out an ambitious agenda for arms control and nonproliferation during an April 2009 speech in Prague, to include seeking an end to the global production of weapon-grade fissile material and eliminating explosive nuclear arms testing.

"There is no serious interagency effort yet under way to grapple with what the story board ought to be for our arms control efforts and how they mate up with our force posture plans," he told the Heritage audience.

One White House official this week said that while debate over New START is currently taking political center stage, that focus has not interfered with administration progress in policy planning.

"The top arms priority of the administration is getting the New START treaty ratified. We are working closely with the Senate to that end," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told GSN. "We are also giving careful consideration to the next steps in nuclear arms control, including the timing of any additional discussions."

Another U.S. official involved in nonproliferation issues, Ambassador Susan Burk, recently said the White House would seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty after lawmakers approve New START (see GSN, June 23).

Earlier estimates had the White House initiating the test ban ratification process this year, but delays in negotiating and ratifying New START have altered those expectations. Administration officials now appear reluctant to say exactly when they plan to submit the accord for Senate review.

"It is still our plan to try to get the Senate to work on CTBT sometime after New START hopefully passes, but that time line has not been determined," said the senior administration official who asked not to be named.