When I first read Pam Richard’s newsletter article regarding the Federation of American Scientists’ recent report to Congress on the implementation of the New START treaty, I was upset. I read it again and it was not as bad as I originally thought, but I’m still going to complain.
Most of her article is taken up with extensive direct quotation of the FAS report, and much of that quotes the State Department. Consequently a good deal of space is taken up with assertions that Russia is failing to adhere to the treaty, is lying, and even that its invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked.” Nothing in the article attempts to refute any of these claims or even notes that the State Department is an unreliable source whose reports are highly political and tend to be full of propaganda supporting US foreign policy. Leaving the US government narrative go unchallenged in this way creates the impression that the US is not responsible for recent failures in arms control and that complaints should be directed to the Kremlin.
Were it not for this excessive focus on what the US has said, the article could have noted that the FAS report argues that while US arms increases are likely without a treaty, they are in fact unnecessary as a deterrent, and are anticipated to lead to other nuclear powers beyond the US and Russia expanding their arsenals. The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that such increases would in fact offend another treaty to which the US remains a party (the nuclear non-proliferation treaty).
Beyond this, the article makes various errors. The authors of the FAS report are not respected as scientists. Matt Korda, for example, has a Master’s Degree in Peace Studies; he is not an expert in any physical or natural science. The New Start Treaty cannot be renewed. Its language allows for one renewal of up to five years, which has already been exercised. It will expire in 2026. A new treaty will have to be drafted, a process which is expected to take 3-5 years, making it an urgent priority to begin now. Another error, in this case likely a typo, is that without an agreement in place, US ICBMs could increase by over 10 percent. The actual figure is over 100 percent; that is, our ICBM capacity likely would more than double.
I don’t mean to beat up on the author of the article. I agree with its conclusions and I am happy that it cites the US history of unilaterally withdrawing from arms control treaties. (I might have added the nuclear deal with Iran.) But I think the uncorrected quotation of propaganda and the various material errors undermine its credibility and its value such that the article does not represent the organization well.