Memo on Nuclear Negotiations with Russia

Memorandum on U.S.-Russia Nuclear Relations

From: Chandler Skolnick

CC: Professor Shirk

To: Secretary of State Tillerson

22 March 2017

 Recent U.S.-Russia Nuclear Plans

            In the decades following World War II, the United States and USSR/Russia have attempted to decrease the threat of nuclear warfare between each other through constant negotiations of establishing non-proliferation agreements. Despite such talks, the two opposing superpowers have been unable to find an agreement that will successfully remain in tact as well as equally deal with the threat of nuclear weapons by Russia, which is specifically displayed since the fall of the Soviet Union with the negotiations of the START agreements.

START Programs

            First announced in 1982, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) enacted limitations and reductions on both nations’ strategic nuclear weapons. This agreement limited the amount of delivery vehicles (ICBMs and MIRVs) to 1,600, while also limiting nuclear weapons to 6,000 on an incremental scale (Andreason). This plan was delayed due to several minor non-negotiable terms by the USSR and was officially signed in 1988.

In 1993, START II was signed, which was another bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Russia on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (Andreason). The aim was to limit MIRVs and ICBMs on both sides in a two-phase scale back. The ultimate goal was to reduce nuclear warheads to 3,000 with no more than 650 on ICBMs (Viakov). The treaty was never truly put into effect as it was stalled by Russia in protest of U.S. involvement in Kosovo, and then only ceremoniously ratified due to American strong-arming.

START III was a failed agreement in 1997. It aimed to gradually reduce the amount of nuclear warheads on either side to no more than 2,500 by 2007. The discussion of commencing the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads and other tactical weapons was also a major agreement made in this deal (Viakov). Despite this, it was never signed and was quickly overshadowed by the SORT negotiations.

SORT

            The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) was an agreement that was enacted between 2003 and 2011, limiting both nations’ deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 2,200 (Andreason). This Treaty failed to discuss the destruction of nuclear warheads, or even the limits to tactical weapons, nor were the implementations technically permanent; as well as the fact that it held no punishments for failing to adhere to the aforementioned terms. New START swiftly replaced SORT after several years.

New START

            Since the START II Treaty was technically still enacted, President Obama chose to build negotiations based on that rather than continue the SORT Agreement (Cox 255). In what is called the New START, both nations are limited to no more than ICBM launchers as well as other delivery systems (Diakov). It also limits the amount of nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550. This Treaty was put into effect in 2011, and will be up for renewal in 2021.

Problems Regarding These Agreements

            Time and time again, Russia has proven to be stubborn in their promises to reduce and/or limit their nuclear arsenal. Just recently, President Trump has issued statements claiming that Russia has been expanding their nuclear weapons cache (Lockie). Clearly, they are not adhering to the various agreements that both U.S. and Russian leaders have agreed to over the past few decades. In recent 2016 statistics, Russia currently has more warheads than when the New START agreement was signed in 2011 (Kristensen). The U.S. must take a new tactic towards dealing with Russia’s nuclear lust.

Solution

            In order to appropriately deal with the Russian Government, a firm stance must be taken. It must first be acknowledged that a world with no nuclear weapons is a realistically dangerous world. This is due to the fact that if no country in the world contains nuclear weapons, then the first country or organization to gain control of such a weapon is at the greatest chance of using it, since there is no possibility of facing retaliation from another nuclear weapon. With that being said, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the world’s best defense at preventing a nuclear strike. It is clear that it is futile for the U.S. Government to place trust in Russia to abide by the restrictions and guidelines that are set in place; nor is it possible to establish an agreement that places more supervision on Russia’s disarmament. History has proven that Russia can be stubborn, specifically by blocking such an agreement from being ratified, if more supervision or restrictions are added to such a treaty.

Therefore, the best course of action would be to disregard the New START, as Russia is clearly not taking it seriously. Instead, the United States Government needs to revamp its production and advancement of nuclear technology. It must be highlighted that this is not done in an aggressive manor toward Russia, but more of a healthy competition to increase the U.S. arsenal compared to Russia. The United States has proven in the past that it can unequivocally outspend Russia and build superior weapons, which causes the inevitability that Russia will be unable to keep up, and thus be forced to concede to a scale back of weapons, one that will be much more in line with what the U.S. originally wanted. Without a display of economic and technological advancement by the United States, he Russian Government will never willingly level the playing fields. They must first be broken; only then will they willingly sit at the table to negotiate fairly.

Works Cited

Andreason, Steve. "A Strong Start." Foreign Affairs. N.p., 04 Jan. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

Cox, Michael, and Doug Stokes. US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

Diakov, Anatoli. "TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS." Instant Research on Peace and Violence 5.1, The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1975): 55-58. Web.

Kristensen, Hans M. "New START Data Shows Russian Warhead Increase Before Expected Decrease." Federation Of American Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

Lockie, Alex. "How the US's Nuclear Weapons Compare to Russia's." Business Insider. Business Insider, 28 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

START Programs

Dear President Trump,

Since the end of WWII and the Cold War, US-Russia relations have not been the best. With both sides owing and creating nuclear weapons, there needed to be some kind of "pact" to make sure that neither side had too many weapons. The START programs were designed to get to the goal of disarmament, However, this program does not allow for either side to have proof that the other side is doing what they are supposed to be doing. 

In order to make sure that each side actually depletes their nuclear warheads, I suggest a program that would require both sides being more clear about the nuclear weapons they have. There should be a plan like some businesses have, with random inspections, thus making the consequences for not bringing down the numbers much stricter than in the past. Understandably, neither side would trust someone from the other country coming to do the random inspections, but having someone that the UN or NATO assigned to this new program would mean that there would not necessarily be a bias towards one country or another, and the truth would be reported. 

Trump and the EU

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2017-01-24/trump-takes-aim-european-union

In this article, Trump distanced himself from the EU, and essential said that both the EU and NATO were useless and "obsolete. " For years, decades even, the EU and the Untied States have been essential powers and partners dealing with foreign policy. Though every President has been different,the partnership with NATO and the EU has been consistent.

This is important to realize because with one President, we could potentially lose the most important ally we have. If President Trump drives a wedge between the US and the EU, it could turn them into one of our biggest enemies. Of course, this might solve the issues with Russia and China, by pulling out of something that they don't agree with. I think that repairing the damages with the EU is the best choice in maintaining peaceful relations with most of the world, and in keeping our foreign policy together.

New Russia Relations?

Bobby Orokos

Make-up Snow Day Work

In my article, the Trump support in Russia is analyzed.  The conclusions are made that under Turmp’s presidency, US-Russia relations may be restored and advanced, rather than living in a post-Cold War tension when it comes to political relations.  Recent tensions have risen as a result of Russian “peacekeeping” interventions in the Ukraine and Syria, and many sanctions have been mutually applied between the two countries.  Also, when it comes to global perspectives of policy, Trump and Putin are both strong realists.  However, under a realist practice, the United States could be replaced by Russia as the powerhouse that drives international institutions.  Discussions between the two leaders included a uniting talk of joining together to fight the forces of Islamic terrorism.  The United States interests under Trump may align with Russia’s when fighting terrorism, but also potentially on the stances of North Korea, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, and the strength of NATO in Eastern Europe.

This article relates to the reading because Russia-US relations have slowly been increasing since the Cold War.  Under President George W. Bush in 2001, he asked Congress to lift the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which placed emigration regulation on Russia, and limited the amount of trade done between the United States and Russia.  Despite asking, Congress refused to lift the act.  Past actions have shown that Russia relations have been slowly moving towards an increase, with individuals poking towards relation improvements between the powers.  Donald Trump is not the first to recommend an improvement in relations, but is the first to hold potential to act upon these recommendations.

Article Link:

http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/why-are-russians-so-optimistic-about-trump

Trump-Putin Relationship

Chandler Skolnick

16 March

Foreign Policy

Professor Shirk

http://www.politico.eu/article/questions-about-donald-trumps-russia-connections-could-hinder-closer-relations-vladimir-putin/

            This Politico article by Michael Crowley focuses on the issues that Congress has risen towards President Trump’s attempt to soften relations between the United States and Russia. It begins by explaining that following the resignation of Retired General Michael Flynn from the position of National Security Advisor, due to his implications in diplomatic discussions prior to President Trump’s election, Congress has urged Trump to take a colder stance toward President Putin and Russia. It goes on to explain how President Trump has proven to hold an unusually high opinion of President Putin, one that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress appear to be extremely skeptical of. As a result of the recent controversy regarding his relationship to Russia, President Trump and his Administration have grown increasingly tough on Russian diplomatic actions. The article mentions specific instances over the past month where members of the Administration including U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Defense Secretary James Mathis, who both have publically condemned Russian foreign affairs. It concludes by summarizing how Russian diplomats have begun to give up on the possibility of easing tensions, seeing as the two administrations are beginning to view compromising on several issues as unachievable.

            The aspects of this article that reflect those of the Russian chapter in the textbook primarily focus around the relationship between presidents in recent years, specifically between former Presidents Obama and Mendvedev.  The textbook describes the many ways that the two presidents were able to build relations, specifically through the START treaty (Cox & Stokes 255). Despite this, the textbook concludes by explaining that despite the advances that were made, the U.S. is still unable to identify whether or not Russia can truly be a friend. Beyond the textbook, in Obama’s second term, he was faced with a much more hostile relationship with President Putin, one that did not appear to build relations between the two nations. In Trump’s Presidency, although quite questionable, his relationship with Putin and Russia showed a glimpse of better relations between the two countries. Unfortunately, as the article presents, Congress is much more nervous about Trump’s personal relationship with Putin, rather than mending the tension between two global superpowers. As a result, Tensions between Russia and the U.S. will remain high, and the two will be unable to reach meaningful compromises for the foreseeable future.

Works Cited

Michael Cox and Doug Stokes (2012). American Foreign Policy. 2^nd ed. Oxford

University Press (Hereafter Cox and Stokes)

War on Terror - Bobby Orokos

Memorandum on Tactics Used to Fight the War on Terror

To: President of the United States, Donald Trump

Cc. Mark Shirk

March 9, 2017

Mr. President,

            The War on Terror is a struggle the United States has been fighting for over 15 years now, and terror still exists all around the world, even after our attempts of eliminating it.  If all our hard work over the past decade and a half have not put us closer to achieving our goal, maybe the ways in which we fight terror need to be adjusted.  Our actions of eliminating terrorists have only lead to more recruitment for these organizations: we are seen as an evil killing whomever we suspect to be associated with terrorism, especially in the Middle East.  Even in Iranian policies, the United States is referred to “the Great Satan” for our actions.  Our methods need to change to both boost our reputation around the world, and achieve our goal of eliminating terror.

            First, we need to recognize that although our past methods have helped achieve our goal, it has also lead to a stronger recruitment for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  This recruitment is not necessarily specifically Muslims in the Middle East, but people all over the world.  For example, a man referred to as “Jihadi John”, was a British Muslim who was responsible for beheadings of Westerners.  ISIS has proved exceptional in recruitment practices, as many of their attacks around the world were not of Middle Eastern Muslims, but Westerners who they were able to radicalize to fight for their goal of a Caliphate.

            In order to better achieve our goal of eliminating terror around the world, we need to start by cutting recruitment of these organizations.  Our government is already targeting social media accounts dedicated to the recruitment for ISIS, but we need to do more.  By shifting our focus from eliminating potential threats, we need to prevent future members of terrorist organizations, and then crack down on those who are associated with these groups.  By taking out targets, especially in public settings, or targets that were not associated with an organization, we only push people further away from supporting our cause, and demote our standing in the eyes of people.

            Recruitment is strong because the actions the United States take against terrorism are seen on a world-wide spectrum, whereas the actions taken by terrorist organizations are not necessarily as widely seen.  Also, the United States eliminates threats in front of others, or harms civilians in the process of eliminating the target.  For example, 64-116 civilians have died as a result of drone strikes from January 20, 2009 until December 31, 2015.  These “targeted killings” need to be more direct, in the sense we need to be 110% certain these targets we are eliminating are directly associated with terrorist organizations, and that no other persons could come to harm in the process of eliminating the target.

            Overall, the United States has attempted to eliminate terror since the 9/11 attacks in New York City, and has been fairly successful in doing so.  However, in our attempt to eliminate terror, we have drawn some people towards terrorist groups as a result of our tactics.  In order to truly eliminate terror, we need to be seen as the hero in the War on Terror, not the villain.  In order to achieve this stance, we need to change our tactics so we truly are fighting purely terror only, not harming civilians or other groups in the process.  Eliminating suspected terrorists has only lead to stronger recruitment for organizations: the United States must show how the actions of terrorists are evil to prevent future recruitment, and then narrow our focus onto eliminating the organization as a whole later on.

US/Russia--Nuclear Arms

Grace Picariello
March 15, 2017

The article I found on the New York Times discusses how the recent advancement in nuclear arms capabilities of the United States and Russia might revive the Cold War style of nuclear arms race. At the end of the nuclear security summit, Barack Obama warned "of the potential for 'ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race'" (Broad, Sanger, NYT). With the advancements of the nuclear weaponry come more concerns. One being that the precision and less-destructive nature of these new weapons raises the temptation to use them" (Broad, Sanger, NYT). This is especially interesting because one of the focal points of Obama's election platform was to decrease, and eventually eliminate, nuclear arms. Instead, however, the abilities ramped up and the spending on nuclear weapons increased to total almost a trillion dollars in the time span of about three years (Broad, Sanger, NYT). Dr. Gubrud, a nuclear arms specialist at the University of North Carolina says, "The world has failed to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle...And new genies are now getting loose" (Broad, Sanger, NYT).

I thought that this article related to the readings for class since it discusses the tensions between the United States and Russia regarding nuclear weaponry. In one of the texts for class, the comparisons between the U.S.' nuclear capabilities are compared to that of Russia's. While Barack Obama was pushing for decreasing the production and testing of nuclear weapons, President Trump thinks that we need more. He argues for this since he believes Russia has "a much newer capability than we do" (Lockie, Business Insider). This is a typical telling point of the idea of a zero-sum game. Trump feels inferior since we have less weapons than Russia and so he will move to create more, which will inevitable inspire Russia to follow suit. Leaving both nations constantly trying to advance technologies that we might not ever need or use.

Works Cited
Broad, William J., Sanger, David E., "Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens to Revive Cold War", The New York Times (April 16, 2016): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/science/atom-bomb-nuclear-weapons-hgv-arms-race-russia-china.html?_r=0

Lockie, Alex, "How the U.S.'s Nuclear Weapons Compare to Russia's", Business Insider (September 28, 2016): http://www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-russia-nuclear-weapons-2016-9

Memo on our Cold War Containment Policy

Memorandum on Cold War Containment Policy

To: President Ronald Reagan
Cc: Mark Shirk
From: Grace Picariello
March 9, 1981

     Following the second World War, major changes were taking place in regard to the international standing of large nations and important global actors. The power of the United States had never been greater and America accepted its' role as an undisputed hegemon. Among the largest of the superpowers were the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Although these nations had fought together during World War Two, the fundamental differences between us were and are bountiful. The Soviet Union valued the teachings and practices of communism while the United States is an inherently democratic, capitalist nation. After World War Two, tensions arose between the Soviet Union and America. Post-War Presidents began to take action to halt the spread of communism. 

     We became involved in multiple wars in which the goal was to fight communism ideologies from spreading, or even existing. Our actions utilized the military heavily which proves to be a highly contentious debate to this day. As a "Beacon on the Hill", the United States saw its' exceptional international standing and its' responsibility to "form a more perfect union" (US Constitution). And so, we became very involved in conflicts around the world, whilst trying to spread our values and ideals. While this might have been for a noble cause, there were a lot of pitfalls to the measures we took. All of the post World War Two Presidents took part in escalating the conflict overseas in one way or another. While the justification and morality of this is debated, I am here to tell you that there is more we can do in these next four years of your term as President to stop the evils of communism.

The Problem/Debate
     Many scholars and students argue over whether or not the United States would be justified in taking such a hands on roll in stopping the spread of communism. While some believe that the nation would be better off remaining isolationist as it was before World War Two, others contend that we have not taken enough action to contain communist threats.


National Security Council Document 68

     The NSC-68 document tells us that as a superpower of the world, the United States needs to check

communist expansion efforts around the world. The document explains that, "three realities emerge as a consequence of this purpose: Our determination to maintain the essential elements of individual freedom...our determination to create conditions under which our free and democratic system can live and prosper; and our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life" (NSC- 68). All of these goals are founded in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Under these provisions, it would be a moral necessity for the United States to take proper action to defend our views. The expansion of communism had been noted to come from Soviet backed groups more often than from the Soviet Union itself. National Security Council Report #68 explains the importance of the United States adopting a strong containment policy as it rejects the more lenient detente policies. NSC-68 encourages the United States to take on a more militant form of containment by utilizing the army when needed to stop the spread of communism. 

     NSC-68 also explains the evils of communist leaders. The document contends, "the fundamental design of those who control the Soviet Union and the international communist movement is to retain and solidify their absolute power" (NSC-68). Therefore, "The design...calls for the complete subversion or forcible destruction of the machinery of government and structure of society in the countries of the non-Soviet world" (NSC-68). Mr. President, we must listen to the words in this document during the duration of your first term in office. 

Solution

     In order to implement stronger policies to contain the spread of communism, we must create a strong international organization whose main goal is to promote western ideals of freedom, liberty, and capitalism. We must educate those around us of the fundamental problems that arise with the implementation of communist ideas. We also must remind others of the successes that America and other democratic nations have seen with a capitalist economy and a government run for the people, and by the people. The military will prove necessary in these actions. We must be strong and display our international standing and strength to the world. The United States ought to team up with other democratic nations in order to get the message out on a global scale. If there were an international organization in place, militaries of many nations would have the opportunity to join forces and invade nations that were falling to communism and implement alternative forms of government. Or, in an even better situation, the international organization would be able to stop the spread of communism to weaker nations before it even began by militarily invading the nation(s) responsible for the takeover.

Works Cited

The Executive Secretary, "A Report to the National Security Council", Washington (April 14, 1950):      https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/coldwar/documents/pdf/10-1.pdf

The Constitution of the United States of America

Memo on War on Terror

Memorandum on U.S. Policy on The War on Terror

To: President Trump

CC: Professor Shirk

From: Chandler Skolnick

9 March 2017

            On September 11^th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a terror organization known as Al-Qaeda. In retaliation for the attack, President Bush sent thousands of American troops into Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (though the reasoning for this move may not have been based around fighting terror), sparking the ongoing war that is now known as the War on Terror. During the beginning of the Bush Administration’s era in the war, the goals were direct: defeat terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, identify and destroy terror organizations, deny states and groups who support terrorism, strengthen weaker states that are prone to the establishment of terrorism, and most importantly, defend American citizens and the U.S. homeland from the threat of terrorism (AmericanProgress.org). The way in which the Bush Administration attempted to accomplish these goals was primarily through the deployment of ground forces into Afghanistan, a full on old-fashioned war. Despite the simplicity of Bush’s approach, it did have dire flaws. Eight years later, the newly elected Obama Administration took a different route. This Administration wanted to refrain from the overreliance on ground troops in order to reduce the need for traditional all-out war. Instead, the Administration has since hanged its focus to targeted killing through drone strikes, supporting the local state’s militaries rather than using U.S. troops, and relying heavily on electronic surveillance (ForeignAffairs.com). Although it has taken a different tactic, the Obama Administration’s approach has also proven to be seriously flawed. As a result of the failures of both Administrations, a solution became clear: to use drones in a less aggressive and reckless way by strictly using them for intelligence on a target, thus minimizing collateral damage.

Problems With These Approaches

            President George W. Bush and his Administration’s approach to the War on Terror was simple: send ground forces to Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq), in the typical style of a traditional war. It was quickly learned that this strategy was extremely problematic. This was primarily due to the fact that the enemy was not a traditional type of enemy, meaning that they were not a specific nation that the U.S. was fighting against. What this means is that there was difficulty in identifying who was an enemy combatant. It was difficult to do so because, unlike the enemies in wars that the U.S. previously fought, the targeted terrorists were not one specific group, and more importantly, they had no uniform. In Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was quick to identify Al-Qaeda as their primary target, however, there were several other terror groups that also attacked troops during their deployments; specifically, the Taliban, who gave protection from the Americans to Al-Qaeda (State.gov). Additionally, even identifying who was a hostile threat in this war was difficult, since these terror groups were dressed as regular civilians rather than in uniform, making it not only impossible to fight a traditional war, but nearly impossible to differentiate civilians from enemies.

            In the case of President Barack Obama and his Administration, they attempted to fix the mistakes of their predecessor’s tactics through their plan of minimizing troops on the ground and increasing targeted killings with drones. Although this is one of the numerous ways in which the Administration handled the War on Terror, it was the most problematic. First, by initiating the use of drones as a priority, President Obama began to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. This was a clear problem specifically in Iraq, as the withdrawal left the toppled country in shambles and extremely vulnerable to the reemergence of a terror organization in power, which is exactly what ISIS was able to take advantage of. Essentially, by withdrawing troops in Iraq, the Obama Administration failed to accomplish the goals of the War on Terror, which were to protect vulnerable states from the emergence of terrorism. The use of drones also gave way for the creation of even more terrorist organizations. While the targeted killings through drones typically accomplished the mission of eliminating terrorists, it often led to substantial civilian casualties, which ultimately caused family members to radicalize and hate the United States. During the Bush Administration, President George W. Bush ordered about 50 drone strikes that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians. President Obama on the other hand, has approved 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians (nytimes.com). By increasing the amount of drone strikes, the Obama Administration has subsequently created more potential terrorists through unintended civilian deaths.

The Solution

            The way to remedy the ever-growing complications in the War on Terror is quite simple: creating a balance between the use of drones and soldiers is necessary. Warfare is constantly evolving. The War on Terror today is not the same war as it was in 2001. Drones are a necessary technology that must be used to fight this modern war, however, the reckless use of missile strikes from these drones is unacceptable. In order to eliminate the creation of more terrorists, the next Administration must focus on using drones solely for intelligence gathering. These drones must be used to scout and identify potential terror targets, but will not strike. Once the terrorists have been identified and the non-combatants labeled, only then will the use of troops be efficient. The United States does not need to initiate a ground war on these targets. Instead, with their specialized forces such as Navy SEALS and intelligence from the drones, the Administration will effectively minimalize the risk to civilian and American lives. The War on Terror is not over, nor is it easy, but there is a more efficient way to go about fighting the enemy that will minimalize danger to innocent civilians, as well as prevent the formation of future terror organizations.

Works Cited

Moeller, Susan. "Bush’s War on Terror." Center for American Progress. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.

"The New York Times Company." The New York Times. The New York Times, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.

Stern, Jessica. "Obama and Terrorism." Foreign Affairs. N.p., 01 Oct. 2015. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.

U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.