David Hoffman reviews the problem of tactical nuclear weapons:

Miasnikov urges change from the status quo. He proposes a two-stage process to improve transparency of both Russian and U.S. tactical arsenals. It would start with something very simple: an exchange of data. How many are there, and where? With both the United States and Russia in presidential election cycles, my guess is there won’t be any action soon. But when the political season is over, Nunn and Miasnikov have offered valuable ideas for how to make progress on this lingering problem. As Nunn writes, “This is a difficult web to untangle, but we must begin.”

One of the recurring complaints supporters of New START kept hearing last year was that the treaty did not address tactical nuclear weapons. Of course, there was no way that a strategic arms reduction treaty would include tactical weapons, but the need to account for these weapons and gradually to eliminate them is real enough. Had New START not been ratified, this would have been out of the question, but at least now there is a chance. One problem is that the fight over New START was so contentious that it has made it hard to imagine how any further arms control treaties would succeed here in the U.S. It would be encouraging if the anti-treaty Republicans who used this as a talking point last year were serious when they expressed concerns about these weapons, but based on what we have heard from them these past two years that would be expecting too much.