Several reasons stand out for START extensions to be a priority for the next administration. First, it sets a good example for the rest of the world. Many people would argue that the U.S. needs to retain its nuclear arsenal in the face of terrorism and potential nuclear proliferation around the world. While there may be some truth to the nuclear deterrence option, in reality, U.S. policies on nuclear weapons almost certainly act like a red flag to a bull. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, stated that the “doctrine of nuclear deterrence has proven contagious.” It becomes difficult for the world to take the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) seriously when nuclear weapons states do not keep up their end of the bargain by making strides in nuclear disarmament. More aggressive U.S. policy, both in the desire to strengthen and/or refurbish its nuclear arsenal and in preemptive policy, as well the refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), sends a signal to the world that nuclear weapons may be a necessary defense strategy. If the U.S. and Russia work towards a solid START extension before the treaty expires, and make real strides in actually reducing their nuclear arsenals, this will signal to the world that these two countries are serious about a world free from nuclear weapons.

A second reason for prioritizing a START extension is to soothe the recent tensions between the U.S. and Russia and prevent the revival of the Cold War. The past six months have seen growing tensions between the two countries, resulting from U.S. plans to put missile defense interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic and Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia. Russia recently stated its plans to invest millions of dollars into its nuclear programs and plans to develop weapons that can penetrate U.S. missile defense (GSN, October 20, 2008). Both the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons remain on hair trigger alert, and have announced first strike nuclear policies if they envision a threat. The Moscow Times quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying “Washington was upsetting the nuclear arms balance by failing to offer a replacement for START…this was needed more than ever.” Russia and the U.S. need to regain their balance and work together. The first way to do that is to come to an agreement on START, which would lend elements of trust to other negotiations. Otherwise, such tensions have the potential to spill out into an uncontrollable mess.

Finally, the lack of security surrounding nuclear weapons makes it important to ensure that the disarmament process remains a priority policy in the U.S. and Russia. A fundamental goal of both countries must be to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of those who are not deterred at all, much less by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Nuclear weapons security in Russia is particularly lax; there is a great deal of nuclear weapons material that is unaccounted for. Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated recently that the amount of stolen nuclear and radioactive material is “disturbingly high.” The stolen material is only enough to make a dirty bomb—scary enough, but not nearly as potentially damaging as a nuclear weapon. What would happen if nuclear weapons are stolen? Not to be outdone, the U.S. has also experienced huge blunders in the security of its own nuclear weapons. In 2007, the Air Force mistakenly transferred six nuclear missiles, which remained mounted for 36 hours, and were never even reported as missing. Even the most diligent country cannot always account for potential mistakes that may end up being detrimental to the world.