Back in January, Admiral J.L. Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress he could ensure national security with four fewer Trident nuclear submarines. The reduction could save taxpayers up to $7 billion that the Navy would be forced to spend to upgrade the subs it has said it doesn't want or need.

There is only one problem: by law he can't reduce the number of subs. Despite a distinguished career and an expertise in naval warfare, his opinion is moot thanks to a Congressional mandate that has since 1996 prohibited reducing the Trident sub force below the current level of 18 subs.

Congress has argued that, until the Russians ratify the START II treaty, the U.S. should not take force levels below those called for under the START I agreement.

This, despite compelling arguments from military experts and some Members of Congress that staying at START I levels is needless. “There is no need to stay at the START I level from a military perspective,” General Eugene Habiger, a former chief of U.S. Strategic Command told the Washington Post Jan. 7, 1999.

The logic for reductions is simple: The Russian nuclear fleet is in disrepair and thus presents less of a threat than it did during Cold War years. The Washington Post reported Jan. 7 that Russia's nuclear fleet is in such a state of decay that for two or three weeks last year, the Russians had no ballistic missile subs patrolling on alert.

“Waiting for the Russians to act on START II is a mistake,” said U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) in a statement on Jan. 6, 1999. Sen. Kerrey said, given all of Russia's economic and social problems, members of the Russian Parliament “don't have time to talk about nuclear arms control.”

It is a sentiment that is echoed in Moscow. ” We don't have the means to maintain several thousand nuclear warheads,” said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov.

In other words, a Russian reduction is already occurring absent ratification of START II. Congress should end these force level restrictions and let the U.S. military reduce its nuclear force. The reductions could save taxpayers billions and, according to experts, without hurting the robust U.S. nuclear deterrent capability.