We Need Deeper, Permanent Nuclear Cuts
For those who only cursorily read The Times, the headline “U.S., Russia to Cut Nuclear Arms” (May 14) appears to report a diplomatic breakthrough. It does not. The same weapons were declared cut in 1993 when the START II treaty was signed. And the new treaty fails in what the START and SALT treaties realized--the permanent destruction of these thermonuclear nightmares. The prospect of thousands of ill-secured nukes in Russia doesn’t make me feel any safer.
But here’s the main question: If Russia is now a friend, an ally and a trading partner, why still train 1,700 long-range missiles on it? (President Vladimir V. Putin wanted to reduce that number but the Pentagon declined.) And why keep these weapons on a high state of alert when their use could spell life’s end on Earth?
We need deeper, permanent cuts, and soon.
Jonathan Parfrey
Executive Director, Physicians
for Social Responsibility,
Los Angeles
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
