Playing politics with New START harms US security
The list of national security challenges facing America today is daunting. A short list of key priorities must include: preventing nuclear weapons and materials from falling into the hands of terrorists; stopping and reversing North Korea and Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons; assuring supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan; promoting stability in Central Asia; and achieving energy security both here and among our allies in Europe.
Not one of these challenges can be effectively addressed by the United States alone. Each of these challenges requires that we work with Russia. Yet the linchpin for our strategic cooperation with Russia—the New START Treaty—is at risk.
Every one of our core security challenges is made more difficult if ratification of the New START Treaty is delayed or, worse, if the treaty is defeated in the U.S. Senate.
The New START Treaty makes modest cuts in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals but is crucial to verification on both sides. Since our two nations can completely destroy each other, military planners usually take the worst-case approach if they do not have confidence in what the other side is doing with its nuclear forces.
When both sides respond to the worst-case, it is not only expensive, but can be very dangerous, so the verification procedures in the New START Treaty are crucial to both U.S. and Russian security.
Through the course of Senate deliberations on the treaty during the past seven months, 18 hearings and approximately 1,000 written answers to questions, objections and concerns from senators about the treaty have been answered and addressed.
The Obama administration also has addressed the important issue of whether we are investing sufficient funds to ensure that our existing nuclear arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable.
To address this concern, the president has committed an additional $85 billion in the next decade to underpin efforts to modernize our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while we work with Russia to mutually meet lower and safer warhead levels under the Treaty.
Delaying ratification of this treaty, or defeating it, to inflict a political defeat on the Obama administration would damage U.S. security interests and U.S. credibility globally. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Strategic Nuclear Commanders and our intelligence community leadership all have stated that the treaty is essential to our nation’s security.
The ratification of New START will not solve all of our front-burner security issues. It will, however, make cooperation from other nations more likely and more effective and therefore enhance American security.
I am hopeful that the Senate will put our nation’s security first by providing advice and consent to this important treaty.
Sam Nunn is a former U.S. senator from Georgia and co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. This op-ed was original published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
In this op-ed published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sam Nunn underscores the need for strategic with Russia.
the Nuclear Threat
Reducing the risk of nuclear use by terrorists and nation-states requires a broad set of complementary strategies targeted at reducing state reliance on nuclear weapons, stemming the demand for nuclear weapons and denying organizations or states access to the essential nuclear materials, technologies and know-how.
Global Security Newswire
Nov. 26, 2013
Senior Obama administration officials informed congressional lawmakers in a closed-door 2012 briefing that Russia was not abiding by a bilateral arms control accord that bans the fielding of intermediate-range missiles, the Daily Beast reported on Tuesday.
Oct. 3, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-weapons experts responded to new data showing that in recent months the U.S. strategic stockpile increased -- despite plans for it to decrease under the 2011 New START agreement -- with a collective shrug.