The first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, considered by many as the most comprehensive arms control treaty in history, will expire tomorrow.  

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are negotiating the expansion of the treaty and its limitations, with both sides expressing a desire to promote global disarmament.

MSNBC reported Obama declared it is the two countries’ duty to take the lead in ridding the world completely of nuclear weapons.

RIA Novisti, a state-run Russian news agency, reported Medvedev insisting the new treaty set lower limitations on both the number of warheads and delivery systems.

Andy Wagner, a freshman in engineering, said it was important to ensure START 1 is continued in some way.

“The treaty helped cool tensions a lot between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and shift nuclear strategy to a more defensive stance,” Wagner said. “We need that to continue or we’ll have to be wary of countries doing what they were doing before the treaty.”

Despite the air of cooperation displayed during the ongoing negotiations there is doubt the two countries will have a new treaty ready by Dec. 5, the insisted signing date and expiration date of START 1. Delays have been attributed to disagreements encountered during negotiations.

As reported by the Washington Times, the U.S. Senate accused Russia of violating START 1 by upgrading an older ballistic missile to fit multiple warheads. Negotiations were also strained in light of the war between Russia and Georgia in August.

On the other side of the table, Russia has insisted the United States dismantle its plans for a missile shield in Europe before negotiations can proceed, as reported by The New York Times. Additionally Russia has threatened to pursue rearmament and modernization of its nuclear arsenal and conventional forces if regional conflicts similar to the war with Georgia persist.

The University, along with having a comprehensive nuclear engineering program, has also hosted guest speakers in nuclear non-proliferation and members of nuclear-related control agencies.

Man-Sung Yim, an associate professor of nuclear engineering, said there would need to be some give and take for this treaty to succeed.

“Russia has to believe they are gaining something from the new treaty,” he said. “Countries outside the missile shield will feel at a disadvantage. Even though the shield doesn’t really work, the US needs to change its stance to level the field for negotiations.”

Yim said Russia’s rearmament is a feasible scenario to increase leverage on NATO members and to revive the country’s status as a superpower.

“There are some signs in Russia of nostalgia for the Cold War superiority among world leaders,” Yim said. “The [modern] equations of hegemony are different and the reasons to have nuclear weapons are different, but Russia still wants to demonstrate their ability.”

Kyle O’Donnell, a sophomore in nuclear engineering, said these are among the reasons it is important to establish another treaty with a cap on weapons.

“There’s no reason for any country to have more than 1,000 nukes,” O’Donnell said. “Also there’s no reason for the US to have land based deterrents [the missile shield] in Eastern Europe.”

According to O’Donnell, because the development of nuclear weapons is so time-consuming there is little chance Russia will be able to rearm as long as a new treaty is ready within a few months.

Scott Lassell, the manager of nuclear services for the University’s reactor program, said he couldn’t see a rearmament strategy happening in either the US or Russia regardless of what happens with the treaty.

“It’s worrisome countries are considering jumpstarting their nuclear programs, but it would be economic suicide to enter another arms race,” he said. “The Cold War was expensive.”

According to Lassell, the primary concern should be future of the current nuclear arsenal. He said the potential for conversion to tactical nuclear weapons, which cannot be traced like strategic variants, poses a greater threat.

“Mutually assured destruction is present to a lesser degree and with the fall of the USSR the possibility of an exchange has dropped significantly,” Lassell said. “I can see how Russia would want its sphere of influence, but I can’t envision a demand for a nuclear weapons program. We should be more worried about portable and tactical nukes that don’t have return signatures being used by rogue states.”