“Disarmament … is a continuing imperative.”
That public statement is not from any peacenik or ideologue on the left, but rather President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his often-referenced Farewell Address. He delivered the address to the nation early in 1961, a last official act.
On Feb. 5, the New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia quietly expired, with remarkably little public attention or discussion. This was the last formal limitation on a new nuclear arms race. President Donald Trump is committed to pursuing contemporary post-Cold War arms control.
In January of 2021, the New START Treaty with Russia was extended for five years. The agreement limits nuclear warheads on each side to 1,550, plus limitations on missiles, launchers, and bombers. This major treaty was about to expire.
The comprehensive nature of the treaty reflects confidence in inspections at that time.
The Ukraine War upended the process. In early 2023, Russia suspended participation. Now, a new arms race may ensue.
The administration of former President Barack Obama emphasized nuclear summits involving large numbers of nations and international organizations. The 2016 Nuclear Summit in Washington, D.C., concluded with a statement underscoring nuclear weapons control.
Unfortunately, Russia did not participate, reflecting strained relations with the U.S. and other nations following the annexation of Crimea.
Nonetheless, the major conference reinforced the important, tangible UN framework to coordinate national efforts. The first Nuclear Summit took place in 2010, also in Washington.
In 1986, during a summit meeting in Iceland, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan surprised their staffs as well as the world by pledging the abolition of all nuclear weapons. That utopian vision fostered a practical result: the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987.
Reductions are extremely desirable, as are firm caps on total numbers, but efforts to outlaw all nuclear weapons are fundamentally flawed. Destroying all known nuclear weapons would provide a decisive advantage to any power which decided – openly or secretly – to hold back even a few. Verification remains challenging.
Another benchmark in the history of nuclear weapons, arms control and the Cold War occurred in 1972 when the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) led to treaties between the U.S. and the Soviet Union limiting missile systems. A second round of negotiations resulted in a follow-on agreement in 1979, but the U.S. Senate did not ratify the treaty in reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that year.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, which concluded when the Soviet Union withdrew nuclear weapons from the island, President John F. Kennedy’s political standing rose considerably. During the Christmas season, JFK held a televised discussion with network correspondents. He gave emphasis to a world soon to contain a number of nuclear powers.
In fact, proliferation has moved much more slowly than anticipated at the time. Various nuclear-capable nations, including close ally Canada, have decided that any conceivable benefits are simply not worth the expense and risks.
Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency, an initiative of President Eisenhower, facilitates peaceful nuclear energy and discourages military pressures to get the weapon. Ike, always comprehensive in vision, also achieved the demilitarization of Antarctica.
Arms control should remain a United States priority. Russia’s weakening economy would provide leverage for new U.S. efforts.
Eisenhower closed his Farewell Address by warning of the dangers inherent in our massive arms establishment, which he termed “the Military-Industrial Complex.” The world remains a dangerous place, and Ike’s example is especially important.
Learn more: Arthur Larson, “Eisenhower: The President Nobody Knew.”
Arthur I. Cyr is author of “After the Cold War” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). Contact acyr@carthage.edu.
