The Military Case for Extending the New START Agreement
Download eBook for Free
|PDF file||0.3 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
Since the 1960s, U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreements have helped to enhance strategic stability, bolster deterrence, and avoid a costly arms race.
With the U.S. decision in 2019 to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, only one bilateral nuclear arms control treaty remains in force: the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, commonly referred to as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START. However, New START is set to expire in February 2021. The U.S. government is reportedly still considering whether to exercise the option to extend New START by up to five years.
The U.S. military has important equities in the outcome of this debate. By capping the number of Russian long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear-equipped heavy bombers and putting in place comprehensive verification measures, New START reduces uncertainty regarding Russian nuclear forces and thereby provides the U.S. military with greater confidence in its own plans and capabilities.
Therefore, national security policymakers need to be conversant on the key provisions of New START, the ways in which the treaty supports U.S. military objectives, and the broader political context in which the current debate over its extension is taking place. This Perspective addresses each of these topics in turn. The author concluded that the United States should seek now to extend the treaty to gain the time needed to negotiate a replacement agreement that addresses a broader range of nuclear delivery systems and China's growing nuclear capability.
Research conducted by
The research described in this Perspective was funded by the U.S. Air Force and conducted by the Strategy and Doctrine Program within RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This publication is part of the RAND Corporation Perspective series. RAND Perspectives present expert insights on timely policy issues. All RAND Perspectives undergo peer review to ensure high standards for quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.