The Law of Nuclear Weapons
President Trump announced on January 17 that the United States will seek to develop new technologies to enhance its missile defenses in order to detect and intercept an adversary's missiles, including enemy missiles still on the ground in their boost phase prior to launch, or moments after liftoff. The announcement warrants a review of the law of nuclear weapons.
February 07, 2019 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
President Trump announced on January 17 that the United States will seek to develop new technologies to enhance its missile defenses in order to detect and intercept an adversary's missiles, including enemy missiles still on the ground in their boost phase prior to launch, or moments after liftoff. The announcement warrants a review of the law of nuclear weapons.
The United States is presently a party to 10 nuclear arms control agreements. Four of them prevent the United States from deploying nuclear weapons in specific geographical areas: The Antarctic Treaty; The Outer Space Treaty; The Seabed Arms Control Treaty; and The Treaty of Tiateloco which covers Latin America and the Caribbean.
Five agreements limit either:
(1) the testing of nuclear weapons (The Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water; and, The Threshold Test Ban Treaty together with The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty regulate all underground nuclear explosions and prohibits such tests having a yield above 150,000 tons of TNT);
(2) the transfer of nuclear weapons (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty); or
(3) the number of strategic deployed nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems (The New START Treaty limits each country to 1550 strategic nuclear warheads on 700 strategic delivery systems).
Finally, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which came into effect in 1988, requires the United States and Russia to eliminate all their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. (The United States has given notice to Russia that it intends to withdraw from the Treaty on the grounds that Russia is violating it and China is not a signatory. Pursuant to the Treaty's terms, the U.S withdrawal would take effect about mid-August 2019 at the earliest.)
The fundamental unwritten law governing nuclear weapons relations between the United States and Russia is the maintenance of mutual security. (While China is expanding its offensive nuclear systems, it seems to be giving more emphasis to developing a very robust conventional weapons capability.) Known as Mutual Assured Destruction (to some the strategy is truly MAD), the strategy rests on both countries knowing they cannot start a nuclear war because they both know they will lose. Both countries know this because each maintains offensive nuclear forces which can survive sufficiently a surprise first strike and then launch a second retaliatory strike which would impose unacceptable damage on the aggressor. It was for this reason that the very first bilateral strategic nuclear agreement between the United States and the then Soviet Union, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) ratified by both in 1972, limited strategic missile defenses to only 200 interceptors at two sites. SALT I ensured both countries they could maintain their devastating second retaliatory strike capability because they knew they could overwhelm the other's limited anti-ballistic missile defenses.
In sum, the United States and Russia are governed, metaphorically, by Isaac Newton's (1643-1727) Third Law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In strategic nuclear terms, this means that every new nuclear weapons development either the United States or Russia takes that has the potential of upsetting mutual security will provoke an opposite reaction of equal force by the other side. Just as much as the United States would take all steps necessary to ensure its offensive missiles could penetrate any new Russian defensive system, the President's missile defense announcement will stimulate a Russian policy to ensure its offensive nuclear forces have the capability of penetrating any enhanced U.S. defense. (This is true even if the U.S. defensive system is focused on destroying small numbers of missiles launched by regional powers, such as North Korea. Russia, like the United States, will always plan on what is called “worst-case scenario.”)
Relations today between the United States and Russia recall Cold War visions of nuclear adversaries. Arms control discussions appear to be non-existent. This is dangerous. The START Treaty will expire in 2021, though both parties by Treaty terms may agree to extend it for a period of up to five years. As difficult as it may be, it is imperative to separate arms control issues from all other bilateral issues. The more fragile the overall relationship, the more existential it is to maintain mutual nuclear security.
David Lenefsky practices law in Manhattan. He was formerly Project Director for Arms Control at The United Nations Association—USA.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPreemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
13 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250