Nuke treaty will make world safer

President Barack Obama met with Russian officials Thursday in Prague to start negotiations on nuclear proliferation and disarmament goals. Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review outlines a gradual plan to scale back the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the U.S.

The plan, which reflects a conservative theme in most of Obama’s recent policy proposals, calls for a gradual buildup of policy enactment. These policies are not headfirst dives into the unknown.

The president’s goal of a nuclear weapon-free state is far away, but his plan does make some intelligent compromises.

One significant detail is that the U.S and Russia must reduce their arsenals by 30 percent.

By itself, this reduction sounds troublesome to some and evokes fear that we may be making ourselves vulnerable to other rogue countries that have histories of dangerous policy.

The treaty, however, has built-in safeguards that will not only encourage Russia to be a significant ally and enforcer, but will encourage other nations to also enter into agreements to avoid the consequences of not working toward these goals.

It is important to note that this agreement that Obama is advocating would not weaken the U.S., but rather would strengthen our nation through the building of relationships with other countries.

The proposed treaty includes a spot for the U.S. to be one of its enforcers; this means our government would be allowed to maintain a sufficient supply of effective nuclear defense weapons as long as other nations remained armed.

The treaty signifies that Obama is serious about working significantly to remove the threat of nuclear warfare — something that will remain a threat until we move toward global reduction.

Obama has faced difficult issues with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and in dealing with a complete lack of respect regarding nuclear arms from Iran and North Korea. Plans to solve all of those conflicts begin with advancements such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

We must not only work to eradicate terrorism but also to gradually reduce the most dangerous of those threats.

Obama campaigned on issues such as reducing nuclear arms and finding peaceful solutions to the wars abroad. While we may be far from pulling troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq, building up allies and cooperation from other nations should be our ultimate goal.

The wars continue to show that military combat is expensive and constantly evolving. There isn’t much support abroad for the war on terror.

Terrorism needs to be fought by more than one nation; it is a battle that needs all the support it can acquire.

Under the treaty, nations that do not work toward denuclearization will be singled out and isolated more significantly. Obama proposed summits with the leaders of other nations in order to reach agreements and keep track of their progress.

Countries that do not comply, assist terrorist groups or aggressively seek weapons of mass destruction will face harsh consequences from the U.S. and its allies in the treaty.

While some may question whether painful consequences and sanctions will do anything to deter these rogue nations from joining the agreement, there has to be a starting point somewhere.

The idea of the U.S. policing rogue nations and countries that support terrorism by itself we already know is a daunting challenge. By starting an agreement with the second-most advanced and powerful nuclear power in the world, we are showing dedication toward reducing the threat of nuclear war — a type of danger that would be irreversible and supremely devastating.

This treaty is a step forward in diplomacy; hopefully, it will change the dangers of war for the better by eliminating weapons that no country should have to use.

Andrew Taylor is an economics senior and may be reached at [email protected]