Consequences of failure to ratify New START
Jul 19, 2010

Gen. Chilton: Russians unconstrained, lose insight into Russian nuclear arsenal

"If we don't get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and...we have no insight into what they’re doing. So its the worst of both possible worlds."

[General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander, 6/16/10]

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, 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.”

[Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter, 4/29/10]

Chris Cillizza - The Friday Line: Can Republicans win back the Senate?
Jul 16, 2010

The kerfuffle caused by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' acknowledgment that there are enough seats in play to flip control of the House this fall has eclipsed another interesting political debate: Could Republicans win the Senate majority too?

The answer? Yes -- but it remains a significantly longer shot than the GOP taking over the House.

Senate Republicans need a net gain of 10 seats, which, if history is any guide, will be difficult. The last time one party made double digit seat gains was in 1980 when Republicans defeated nine incumbents and won three more Democratic open seats for a 12-seat pickup. (Thank you Ronald Reagan!)

Still, if the last few elections have taught us anything, it's that history isn't always determinative. (Thank you Barack Obama!)

So, here's a step-by-step guide on how Republicans could -- and we emphasize could -- get the 10 seats they need.

The first four pickups aren't that difficult to see. Republicans are heavy favorites in North Dakota and Delaware and have to be considered in the stronger position in Indiana and Arkansas.

Gov. Romney: Birch Society or James Schlesinger
Jul 07, 2010

Former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger and John Birch Society Agree:
New START Follows a Long Line of Arms Treaties from Reagan to Obama

Schlesinger Endorses Ratification; Birch Society Opposes

On Which Side of the Conservative Divide Does Gov. Romney Stand?

The ultra-right wing John Birch Society recently opposed the New START nuclear reductions treaty signed by the United States and Russia.

That group at least has been consistent; it has 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.

In its June 30 statement, the Birch Society stated:

The New START Treaty is the latest installment in a long series of disarmament treaties between the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) that began in 1961.

That period would, of course, cover President Reagan’s Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement and President George W. Bush’s Treaty of Moscow.

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.

McChrystal and Uniform Code of Military Justice
Jun 23, 2010

Unoformed Code of Military Justice

SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Sec. Art. 888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

John Isaacs blog on his trip to Asia (cont.)
Jun 13, 2010

I have now completed the second and last leg of my trip to Asia, this time in Brunei, sponsored by the Department of State to speak about nuclear weapons issues.

Brunei is a small country of about 400,000 people surrounded by parts of Malaysia and on the island of Borneo. It is a monarchy independent of the United Kingdom since 1984 and run by a Sultan. It is a heavily Muslim and dry country with oil wealth to support the local population. It imports Thais, Philippinos, Indians and Indonesians to run the service industries in the country.

In Brunei, I spoke before three groups:  officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a university group and about ten Ambassadors  or deputy chiefs of mission to Brunei from countries such as Russia, Indonesia, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and a couple of other countries. I also did two brief interviews with Brunei journalists.

John Isaacs in Malaysia Discussing Nuclear Weapons Issues
Jun 07, 2010

I was invited by the Department of State to speak to a variety of audiences in Malaysia in early June (and Brunei next week) about nuclear weapons issues.

It was an opportunity to speak favorably about the new United States nuclear weapons policies as well as to engage in some travel to far off places.

The primary purpose was to speak at a conference on The United States and the New Asia: Towards Partnership and Multilateral Engagement in the 21st Century. The conference was hosted by the Center for American Studies in Kuala Lumpur and the Malaysian Association for American Studies.

While I focused on nuclear weapons issues, others at the conference spoke on emerging multilateralism in Asia, ASEAN's (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations)  role in Asia, the North Korean nuclear crisis, the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis on American power and influence in Asia, rising China and India, cultural relationships between the US and Asia and non-traditional security issues.

While I was there, the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur set up a briefing for journalists, an Al Jazeera interview on Burma's nuclear intentions, and talks at the International Studies Center, the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations and the National Defense University...

START Hearing with Former Secretary of State James Baker
May 19, 2010

Today, Former Secretary of State James Baker— a key figure when the original START treaty was negotiated- testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the history of arms control and on the New START treaty.

He called New START a modest and appropriate continuation of START I, although questions on missile defense, verification and our nuclear umbrella need to be addressed.

Baker’s testimony emphasized the importance of arms control, arguing it is a “critical component of our security” as well as that of our allies. He further suggested that our security increases when diplomatic relations between two nations are characterized by openness rather than secrecy.

He said that the New START takes us in a direction that can enhance our security, improve our relationship with Russia, allow for a reduction in the number of warheads, and increase our ability to work to stem proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins hearings on New START
May 18, 2010

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its first official hearing on New START with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen.

There were strong positives for the treaty. The three witnesses presented a robust defense of New START and provided very credible responses to some of the major criticisms of the treaty.

At the same time, the critics keep raising the same issues and even invented some new ones.

Obama Administration fact sheet summarizing its 10-year nuclear budget
May 13, 2010

The New START Treaty – Maintaining a Strong Nuclear Deterrent

Earlier today, the President submitted the New START Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. An important milestone for the President’s non-proliferation agenda, the treaty will limit the U.S. and Russia to significantly fewer strategic arms, while permitting each Party the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the Treaty limits.

The President has also provided to Congress a classified report, as required by Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010, on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex. This report is based on the policies and principles in the Nuclear Posture Review and describes a comprehensive plan for sustaining a strong nuclear deterrent for the duration of the New START Treaty and beyond. The plan includes investments of $80 billion to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex over the next decade.