The United States and Russia have moved far beyond the fierce, high-stakes hostility that characterized the Cold War years. But in recent years, relations between the two governments have often been irritable and uncooperative. So it's a pleasant surprise to find President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev reaching accord on a plan for reducing their nuclear arsenals.
Being able to work with the Russians on this issue may be good practice for addressing other ones, such as Iran and North Korea. Thawing the chill in relations that took place under President George W. Bush is a good step toward finding common ground instead of reasons to bicker.
But the treaty, which Obama and Medvedev signed Thursday, is also good for several other reasons. The first is that it brings about a useful shrinkage of stockpiles that are far larger than either side needs. Under the New START, each would be allowed 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 delivery vehicles (meaning missiles and bombers).
On paper, that represents a cut of some 30 percent from current levels. But the change is exaggerated. In reality, the United States will have to eliminate only about 100 warheads, compared to 190 for the Russians.
Most of the "cuts" reflect revisions in the way weapons are counted. Still, even modest reductions are worth making, given the vast overkill maintained in either country.
Equally important, the accord renews and expands the system of verification established under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired in December. The reporting and inspection regime will assure that Washington knows the number and location of Moscow's long-range nukes, in the event that the Russians were inclined to cheat on the deal.
Conservatives worried that the administration would give in to Russian demands to give up missile defense plans. But the treaty includes no limits on missile defense for the simple reason that Obama refused to accept them and Medvedev finally dropped the idea. That outcome should greatly improve the chances of ratification by the Senate.
Perhaps the real significance of the agreement, though, is that it gives the United States greater credibility in trying to prevent nuclear proliferation. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obliges non-nuclear signatories not to acquire the bomb, but it also requires the existing nuclear powers to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."
It's hard to tell others about the need to curb the spread of nukes if you're not meeting your responsibility to reduce your own armaments. When the NPT review conference takes place in New York next month, the U.S. will have more credibility in stressing the need to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
At best, New START represents a modest advance for U.S.-Russia relations and control of nuclear weapons. But it beats the heck out of moving backward.
