John R. Bolton and John Yoo sing a duet on the joys of nuclear in today's New York Times:
... Voters want government brought closer to the vision the framers outlined in the Constitution, and the first test could be the fate of the flawed New Start arms control treaty ... signed by President Obama and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia ... The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense.
....New Start’s faults are legion. The low limits ... on nuclear warheads ignore the enormous disparities between American and Russian global responsibilities and the importance of America’s "nuclear umbrella" in maintaining international security.... constraints on launching platforms would impede Washington’s ability to use conventional warheads even in conflicts far from any Russian interest or responsibility... other deficiencies, from inadequate verification provisions to leaving Moscow’s extensive tactical nuclear weapons capabilities unlimited.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Professor Yoo executes an unusually kinky and tricky dance with a "nuclear umbrella."
"A Trojan horse" chant the messieurs Bolton and Yoo, imperiling our nation, they wail, "the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness about national missile defense."
Dangers lurk in "an unspecified 'interrelationship' between nuclear weapons and defensive systems." Worse, Russians outgame the Americans in the nuclear fizzle.
Dangerous bargaining by the Obama administration:
The Obama administration hopes to sell this dangerous bargain with a package of paper promises. The Foreign Relations Committee’s resolution contains various "conditions," "understandings" and "declarations" holding that New Start doesn’t "impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defenses" or dilute Congress’s aspiration to defend the nation from missile attack. A second understanding exempts conventional weapons systems with a global reach. A third affirms Congress’s commitment to the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
... As Eugene Rostow, a former under secretary of state, put it, such reservations and understandings have "the same legal effect as a letter from my mother." They are mere policy statements that attempt to influence future treaty interpretation. They do not have the force of law; they do not bind the president or future Congresses. The Constitution’s supremacy clause makes the treaty’s text the "law of the land."
Only the Senate can save us now. Thirty-four senators stand between us and utter disaster. The two Johns end their sonata with these dire words:
If 34 senators reject a treaty, no president can override them. Senators should now use that power to advance the national interest by stopping or demanding changes in New Start. The Constitution’s plain meaning, so prized by the voters in last week’s elections, requires no less.
I must say, interesting reading of voter intent in the raggled tealeave debris from the 2010 election.