Document text
Prospects for nuclear war and peace with Trump Saturday Feb 4, 2017 at 12:01 AM By Herbert Rothschild What’s the likelihood of a global nuclear catastrophe during the Trump years? I’ll focus mostly on our relationship with Russia, because it dwarfs any other consideration. During one of the presidential debates Clinton tried to tar Trump with the Putin brush, accusing him of being too friendly. Trump replied that it would be a good thing if we got on better terms with the Russian president. Unless we were viewing that debate through a strictly partisan lens, we might have noted the irony of a Democrat trying to score political points by accusing a Republican of being soft on Russia. It’s true that Putin is an authoritarian leader with Big Power ambitions. But when we were trying to end the nuclear arms race in the '70s and '80s, it was this same argument that we had to overcome repeatedly. We would explain that we weren’t trying to whitewash the Soviet Union and its leaders or advocating that we trust them. Rather, we were seeking an easing of hostilities so we could negotiate verifiable arms control agreements. At another point in the debates the candidates were asked what they would do about the situation in Syria. Clinton responded that she would establish a no-fly zone over rebel-held territory. I have long hoped that no U.S. leader would be so reckless as to attempt that, because it’s the surest way to get into a military conflict with Russia and risk starting World War III. And not only might it be a disaster, we have no moral authority to tell Russia it can’t bomb in Syria, because we started bombing there long before it did. Our relationship with Russia must be re-set. Since the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union, every U.S. administration — Republican and Democratic alik — has pursued policies toward Russia that have provoked resentment, alarm and finally push-back. When she was secretary of state, Clinton strongly supported such policies. I voted for her knowing that I would have to fight her tooth-and-nail on this aspect of her foreign policy, among others. Time doesn’t permit me to document thoroughly my claim that our policies toward Russia have been provocative. The most important has been our expansion of NATO right up to the western border of Russia by taking into the military alliance all the former Warsaw Pact nations. And we have tried to take in Ukraine and Georgia. We’ve even been conducting joint military exercises with Georgia on Russia’s southern border. It’s impossible to rightly understand Putin’s intervention in those two former Soviet republics and his reclaiming the Crimea, site of Russia’s only warm water naval base, without acknowledging his well-founded fear of military encirclement. And if I had more time, I’d tell you about NATO’s deployment of anti-missile systems, including installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Since 2007 Putin has been warning that these moves could provoke a new arms race, but we have largely ignored him. More on NATO. In an interview with the Times of London on January 15, Trump said that he had been heavily criticized for calling NATO “obsolete,” and he backed down some from his criticism. I’m sorry he did. NATO should have been disbanded when its Soviet counterpart, the Warsaw Pact, disbanded and there was no longer reason to fear that Russia would invade western Europe. Now there is talk about a Russian invasion of the three Balkan states, but it’s NATO that has provocatively stationed troops and arms on that border. In that same interview, Trump said that he would consider easing our economic sanctions against Russia in return for a new nuclear arms reduction treaty. Surely that’s good news. In Obama’s last news conference the following Wednesday, he said he hoped the sanctions wouldn’t be lifted, because he said it’s important to affirm the principle that powerful nations shouldn’t invade small nations. I was flabbergasted that so intelligent a man could be so obtuse to the irony of that statement. Having made all these points, like many of you I still fear that a person of Trump’s temperament and questionable judgment has his finger on the nuclear trigger. And Trump has said that he would expand our nuclear capability until “other nations come to their senses.” But it’s hard to know what he meant by that — if indeed he was really thinking of anything. Probably he will continue the unjustified and hugely expensive so-called modernization of our current arsenal, which under Obama included new production facilities for fissile materials. And though Trump damned the agreement that ended Iran’s nuclear weapons program, there isn’t much he can do to turn the clock back on it. Now that he’s president, Trump will have to formulate policies, not just tweet impulsively. Whether a coherent nuclear weapons policy will emerge is uncertain. I think our prospects for nuclear sanity under Trump are both brighter and dimmer than they would have been under Clinton. We’ll have to wait and hope for the best. — Herbert Rothschild guides the Prevent War program of Peace House.