Let's talk about a nuclear treaty expiring and what it really means.... - Belle of the Ranch

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about a nuclear treaty expiring and what it really means.

Okay, so the New START treaty has expired. It was really kind of the core of nuclear arms control around the world. It regulated and provided a lot of predictability when it came to US and Russia nuclear forces. It is gone. Russia made some overtures about extending it or creating a new treaty back in September, but Trump blew them off. There's rumor mill stuff at time of recording about a handshake deal to continue to observe the treaty, but we'll see.

This has prompted a lot of questions. I'm going to answer them, but because of the answers, I want to say that while a lot of the fears are overblown, the expiration of this treaty and an administration that doesn't seem to understand why it's important is actually a huge deal, just not in the way people are asking about.

Okay, first question. Belle, do the thing. Call us Zoomers. Did a nuclear peace treaty really just expire? No. There is no risk of imminent nuclear war. Well, no more than normal. This treaty wasn't a peace treaty. It was a treaty that limited the number of deployed warheads and provided for inspections and verification.

Next question. Does this mean we're in for another arms race? Not immediately. Russia doesn't have the money to compete in that way. They're not going to be upgrading soon.

Third question, why does Russia seem to be more interested in this than the US? Two reasons. Russian officials have a better understanding of the issue than the Trump administration. And Russia can't afford another arms race.

Fourth, so we're building more nukes, seriously? We're probably not going to increase the number of nukes we have, at least not initially, but we'll probably be pointing more nukes at each other. New START limited deployed nukes, not nukes in general. So, nukes that have been in storage might come out and be aimed. That being said, if there was an exchange with the number of nukes permitted under New START, the living would envy the dead. It's throwing a match on a fire.

Okay, so if the answers to all of these questions were, eh, that isn't really changing immediately. Why does this matter? Because it isn't about the immediate. If the US and Russia aren't involved in nuclear arms control, why should any country be concerned?

Long-standing US position has been to get China to engage in nuclear arms control as well. That's something that even Trump supported. Why should they now? Their major competitors aren't.

Why should countries who don't have a nuke not pursue one? Nuclear arms are strategic. It's not about the immediate threat. It's about how it shapes the world in the future. Trump's attitude was, "If it expires, it expires." That's not me putting words in his mouth. He actually said, "If it expires, it expires." There's not an immediate dramatic increase in the risk of nuclear war, but the US is less safe today than it was yesterday and this is something some other president will have to clean up. Until it's cleaned up with a real treaty, the entire world is less safe.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.