The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, is a straightforward extension of an older treaty negotiated by President Ronald Reagan, signed by President George H.W. Bush, and ratified by a Senate vote of 93-6. The treaty provides for mutually verifiable reductions in strategic nuclear weapons by the world’s two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the United States. It has the support of every senior military and diplomatic official who has spoken or testified about it. So why is it so controversial?
As Sen. Tom Daschle explained this week at the Center for American Progress, it’s all about politics:
To say that ratifying New START ought not be controversial is an understatement... The obstacles today to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, the obstacles to increasing this country’s national security, the obstacles to continuing down the path that President Reagan himself first cleared—they are entirely political.
The first treaty led to an 80 percent reduction in strategic nuclear arms between the two countries over 15 years. American inspectors who are monitoring Russian nuclear activities will have to come home if the Senate doesn’t ratify New START. Worse, American credibility on nuclear issues would suffer without ratification, making it harder to convince our allies to lock down vulnerable nuclear materials and maintain pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Politicians are the only ones who disagree about how important it is to ratify New START. The treaty’s opponents on Capitol Hill could not find a single witness who would testify against ratifying New START in 17 senatorial hearings. Some witnesses had questions about the treaty or pointed out flaws, but all of them advised senators to ratify it.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is one among several in the current debate who has ignored military leaders’ unequivocal advice. He tried to convince Washington Post opinion page readers that New START would hamper U.S. missile defense capabilities even though Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, who is charge of the country’s missile defense program, testified that New START would have no such consequence. In fact, Gen. O’Reilly told senators that the treaty would strengthen American missile defense by allowing his agency to focus on threats from countries other than Russia, namely Iran.
The Cold War may be over, but the threat of nuclear war from two nuclear-armed states or nuclear terrorism is still with us. Daschle’s speech exemplifies the seriousness and thoughtfulness we need from political leaders on this issue.