President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a nuclear arms reduction pact to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on Thursday. The ceremonial event fulfills Mr. Obama’s promise to pursue the pact and signals a welcome return to a process that had languished under the previous administration. Though the treaty provides only modest reductions in nuclear weapons kept by both signatories, it does provide direct benefits to both countries and world at large. It merits ratification.
The treaty does not have the force of law — yet. That requires approval from legislators in both countries. Gaining it will not be easy, particularly in the Senate where Mr. Obama needs Republican votes to ratify the treaty. The broad benefits that will accrue from the treaty and the improvement in U.S.-Russian relations that it indicates argue persuasively for approval there.
The treaty requires the United States and Russia to limit deployment of strategic warheads to 1,550, a reduction from the 2,200 permitted by the Treaty of Moscow signed in 2002 by President George W. Bush. In addition, each country would be limited to 800 total land-, air- or sea-based launchers, a reduction from the 1,600 allowed by the 1991 Start 1 treaty. More significant reductions in both warheads and launchers are desirable, but the treaty is a welcome move in that direction after a long hiatus.
Nuclear arms control involves more than a reduction in warheads and launchers. It requires a system of verification and a well-designed platform from which to address related issues. The pact signed Thursday delivers both. It restores a lapsed inspection system that provides a fair and non-threatening way to assure that both nations are meeting treaty obligations.
More importantly, the pact creates a basis for additional talks on further reductions of weapons like stored or tactical warheads not covered in the new treaty. It also provides a a framework in which other vital issues — Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear grandstanding , for example — can be discussed in an environment that promotes cooperation rather than confrontation.