nuclear-news

New START nuclear treaty critical issue – beyond party politics

Standard-bearers and negotiators for nuclear weapons controls in the United States span the spectrum from conservative to liberal. This is a subject so momentous it defies partisan politics. Or it should.

National security at greater risk without New START, The Cap Times,  Susan Shaer, 26 Sept 10, “………..The United States and Russia maintain over 90 percent of the world’s arsenal of some 23,000 nuclear weapons. The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between our two countries providing for inspections and monitoring of these weapons expired nearly a year ago. The Senate now must ratify the New START treaty by a two-thirds margin (67 votes) to preserve the security protections of on-the-ground intelligence we have relied on.

What is taking our senators so long? The old START treaty was backed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Now President Barack Obama backs New START. John Kennedy and Richard Nixon supported efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. George W. Bush relied on START verification issues for his treaty with Russia on strategic offensive reductions, better known as the Moscow Treaty. The mandate for strategic arms reduction appears to be bipartisan and firm.

With such mighty support from presidents, why the delay? Nine months without a treaty? Nine months without safeguards and verification?

Legitimate questions have been asked and answered through 21 open and classified hearings. The testimony of more than 20 expert hearing witnesses has been heard, and New START has overwhelming support from across the political spectrum. Presidents and America’s military leaders (former and current) support the treaty. Yet Republicans are fence sitting, balking or pushing it off.

We have now gone months without critical intelligence from on-site verification and monitoring in Russia. With the expiration of START, our inspectors lost access to dozens of Russian sites. If the new treaty is not ratified we will lose this critical information and American national security will be at greater risk.

Failure to ratify New START would send a message of indifference to Russia and the rest of the world, voiding decades of arms control policy. Failure to ratify would be a warning sign to the world that the U.S. no longer stands behind its nuclear commitments.

Standard-bearers and negotiators for nuclear weapons controls in the United States span the spectrum from conservative to liberal. This is a subject so momentous it defies partisan politics. Or it should.

Susan Shaer: National security at greater risk without New START

September 27, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear secrecy, nuclear weapons