Consequences of Failure to Ratify New START
Nov 17, 2010
Straight from the mouths of our military leadership and current and former high-ranking government officials from both parties...
Gen. Chilton: Russians unconstrained, lose insight into Russian nuclear arsenal
Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities, and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. Without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst-case analyses regarding our own force requirements. Further, we would be required increasingly to focus low-density/high demand intelligence collection and analysis assets on Russian nuclear forces.”
[General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander, 6/16/10]
Adm. Mullen: Lost of trust weakens deterrence
"And as I have said many times, in many different contexts, in this fast-paced, flatter world of ours, information, and the trust it engenders, is every bit as much a deterrent as any weapon we deploy."
[Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, 11/12/10]
Brent Scowcroft: Nuclear negotiations thrown into chaos
“The principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.”
[General Brent Scowcroft (Ret.), President George H.W. Bush's National Security Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 6/10/10]
James Schlesinger: U.S. non-proliferation efforts undermined
"Failure to ratify this treaty “would have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue.”
[James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter, 4/29/10]
Reading the tea leaves on New START
Nov 09, 2010
There is still an excellent chance that the New START agreement gets considered in the post-election lame duck session.
Despite the cries of gloom and doom by some naysayers.
Look at what a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in a Weekly Standard piece.
Don Stewart, the press spokesman, says he thinks that Democrats "probably" will not be able to get New START completed before the end of the year.
He did not say it cannot happen.
He did not say Hell No!
He did not say, No way, No how.
Senate Foreign Relations postpones New START vote until September
Aug 05, 2010
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has re-scheduled the vote for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty for mid-September. This schedule means that the Committee believes it is time to move from hearings and questions to decisions this fall.
New START requires modest reductions in the deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia and restores an essential means of monitoring and verifying each side’s nuclear forces that has been absent since the START I treaty expired on December 5, 2009.
Although we believe that the Senate will give their advice and consent to the treaty by an overwhelmingly margin, the treaty still remains in limbo. As of today, it’s been 241 days and counting since START I expired and with it our on-site monitoring and verification presence in Russia.
It is important to review the treaty before voting. However, raising questions and concerns, while part of the process, should not be used as an excuse to delay the treaty indefinitely.
Continue to call or write your Senators and urge them to support this treaty!
Senate Sets September Endgame on New START
Aug 04, 2010
The following statement was issued yesterday in response to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's announcement:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 3, 2010
CONTACT: Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 202.546.0795, ext. 2103, kreif@clw.org
Washington, D.C. – Council for a Livable World today applauded the decision by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to set a schedule for a vote on the New START treaty in September.
This schedule means that the Committee believes it is time to move from hearings and questions to decisions this fall.
“The debate over the national security merits of the treaty is over,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council. “New START enjoys overwhelming support from current and retried U.S. military leaders and former high-ranking government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations. The 20 hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other committees to date have built an impressive bipartisan record in support of the treaty and provided answers to all of the key substantive questions about the treaty.”
Isaacs added: “As of today, it’s been 241 days and counting since START I expired and with it our on-site monitoring and verification presence in Russia. The Senate should give its advice and consent to New START as soon as possible because the greater the uncertainties about Russia’s forces, the more likely U.S. defense planners will engage in costly worst case estimates about U.S. force requirements.”
New START requires modest reductions in the deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia and restores an essential means of monitoring and verifying each side’s nuclear forces that has been absent since the START I treaty expired on December 5, 2009.
“A handful of Republican Senators have indicated that they would like to support New START pending resolution of their concerns over funding for the nuclear weapons complex, which is separate from the limits and verification provisions in the treaty,” said Kingston Reif, the Council’s Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. "I am confident that when a vote occurs the Senate will provide its advice and consent to the treaty by an overwhelming margin.”
“Nevertheless, the longer the treaty remains in limbo, the less information we will have about Russia’s still enormous deployed nuclear arsenal,” Reif added. “Raising questions and concerns, while part of the process, should not be used as an excuse to delay the treaty indefinitely.”
Council for a Livable World is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and increasing national security.
Tell Your Senators Today to Vote for New START!
Jul 15, 2010
The debate is in full swing. Right wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the John Birch Society have come out in strident opposition to the New START nuclear reductions treaty signed by the United States and Russia.
Call or write your Senator today! Let them know which side of the debate you are on.
The Birch Society has consistently opposed all nuclear arms treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union and its successor state, Russia. These treaties, according to that group, date back to 1961 when John F. Kennedy was President and continued through the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I and II administrations.
Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, a hawk of hawks, agrees with the Birch Society on one major point: the latest nuclear reduction agreement follows in a long line of nuclear arms treaties.
However, Schlesinger endorses New START, pointing out that the agreement is consistent with past nuclear arms reductions agreements.Schlesinger is joined in this endorsement by other such GOP national security luminaries as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley. America’s entire military leadership also supports the treaty.
The facts cannot be ignored; New START is important to the national security of the United States, but the far right has seized this opportunity to wage yet another partisan battle based on politics rather than facts.
Tell your Senator that you support the treaty. Call or write today!
Governor Mitt Romney has joined in opposition to the New START agreement. In a July 6 Washington Post OpEd, the once and future presidential candidate called the latest arms agreement President Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake.
The OpEd was rife with inaccuracies, and almost certainly designed to boost his position among the far right that will go far to determine the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012.
Inhofe Fact-Free Opposition to New START Agreement
Jun 23, 2010
On June 18, Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe became the first and thus far only U.S. Senator to outline publicly his opposition to the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms agreement.
In his Senate floor speech, Inhofe stated: “I remain concerned about several critical pieces of this security treaty: modernization, force structure, missile defense, verification and most importantly, our overall ability to deter our enemies.”
Inhofe pointed out that he was delivering his remarks the day after the first Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treaty.
What Inhofe did not point out was that he did not attend that Armed Services Committee hearing.
Nor has Inhofe, a member of both Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, attended a single one of the latter committee’s seven public hearings.
Not one. He has a perfect record of not attending a single hearing.
He asked not a single question of important witnesses: not about modernization, force structure, missile defense, verification or deterrence.
Testimony by Former Secretary Henry Kissinger
May 25, 2010
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing: The Role of Strategic Arms Control in a Post-Cold War World (The New START Treaty)
May 25, 2010
On Tuesday May 25, Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty, unequivocally recommending the treaty’s ratification.
Secretary Kissinger is experienced in the field of arms control and nuclear security—he is author of Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, he negotiated the first agreement to limit U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons through the SALT I accord, and in 2007 he became one of the most well known figures to endorse the goal of creating a world free of nuclear weapons.
Secretary Baker Supports Start: Tough Minded Republican Stands Up to Republican Irresponsibles
May 20, 2010
Secretary James Baker's support for START adds to Senate prospects for approval of the START Treaty. James Baker brings a wealth of diplomatic and governing experience to his judgment in support of START, Nobody can deny he is one tough minded Republican
Baker uncategorically stated that arms control is a "critical component of our security" as well as that of our allies. In lawyer like precision Baker made a clear and compelling case for START: it strengthens our national security, improves our relations with Russia, reduces our warheads and gives us an advantage in stemming the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Baker dismissed Senate irresponsibles, led by Senator DeMint (R-SC), on their favorite tune: Obama and the liberals want to limit missile defense. Baker took the issue on directly directly by dealing with it on its merits making the case for missile defense as a policy that destabilizes relationships with Russia. Baker lived up to his reputation for bluntness.
Furthermore, he would not dismiss zero nuclear weapons. He listed three criteria that fit the Obama-Clinton-Gates framework: every state that has nuclear capability needs to be at the negotiating table; use proportional reductions to get to the zero goal; verify by having the tools to do it and put no obstacles in the way of verification.
As Al Gore and Warren Christopher know all too well, Baker is a tough trench political warrior. We arms controllers have had large differences with Baker on policy and politics.That makes his testimony all the more powerful. He poses a challenge to Senate Republicans: choose the Irresponsible--Inhofe, DeMint and others-- it's the ghost of Jesse Helms-- or follow Baker and Schlesinger who are as tough and as realistic as they come. Baker's testimony poses a sharper choice for Senate Republicans than they realized going into this effort.
Senators who have to wrestle with this choice include Kyl, McCain, McConnell, Chambliss and Isakson(Ga), Graham (SC), Thune (SD), Burr NC), Hutchison and Cornyn (Tex), Johanns (Nebr), Gregg (NH), Brown (Mass), LeMieux (Fla), Alexander and Corker (Tenn), Hatch and Bennett (Utah), Bond (Mo), Cochran (Ms), Grassley (Ia), Roberts (Ks). Voinovich (Ohio), Shelby (Ala) and Murkowski (Alaska
The Senate target list for getting to 67 by advising and consenting on START has been significantly enlarged. Baker, and Schlesinger before him, are statesman of the first order. Their actions have political consequences. Sensible and responsible Senate Republicans will heed their voices.
The Two Faces of Senator Inhofe
Apr 19, 2010
"U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said a treaty signed by President Barack Obama and Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to limit nuclear weapons faces a hard battle in the Senate, 'and I'll lead the opposition to it.'"
Associated Press - April 18, 2010
"We support your determination to bring into force a follow-on agreement to START prior to its lapse on December 5th of this year. However, we will be reluctant to support any agreement that is explicitly conditioned on U.S. abandonment of missile defenses in Europe or otherwise linked to a U.S. decision to curtail or abandon those defenses. "
July 2, 2009 letter to the President signed by Senator Inhofe
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Vice Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Gen. Kevin Chilton and Director Missile Defense Agency Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly say that the New START agreement does not constrain U.S. missile defense programs in any way.
Why is Senator Inhofe changing his position?
Full Text of New START Treaty
Apr 08, 2010
Available at the Dept. of State website:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf.
