An intercontinental ballistic missile at a military parade in Moscow, May 9, 2017.PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Limiting our and Russia’s nuclear forces will only encourage hawks in Beijing to similarly strive for strategic advantage on the cheap, ironically making the world a more dangerous place, not less.
April 21, 2019 2:27 p.m. ET
Regarding George P. Shultz, William J. Perry and Sam Nunn’s “The Threat of Nuclear War Is Still With Us” (op-ed, April 11): The authors’ call for greater bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in reducing nuclear uncertainty ignores the elephant—or rather the dragon—in the room. Any future arms control agreement limiting nuclear weapons and their delivery means is pointless if it doesn’t impose reciprocal limits on China’s growing arsenal. Beijing has shown with its extraordinary theater tactical missile buildup how to gain regional advantage by exploiting INF treaty limits imposed only on the U.S. and Russia.
Limiting our and Russia’s nuclear forces will only encourage hawks in Beijing to similarly strive for strategic advantage on the cheap, ironically making the world a more dangerous place, not less.
Carl Graham
Honolulu, Hawaii
It’s disheartening to read such eminent statesmen issue bromides about the risks of nuclear war and the need for serious negotiations with Russia to reduce the risk, without even a word about the recent decision by the Trump administration to leave the intermediate nuclear treaty due to Russian cheating. Cheating is a big issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment