{"id":9276,"date":"2011-01-10T00:00:39","date_gmt":"2011-01-09T23:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=9276"},"modified":"2011-01-04T21:03:35","modified_gmt":"2011-01-04T20:03:35","slug":"a-new-start-towards-nuclear-sanity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2011\/01\/a-new-start-towards-nuclear-sanity\/","title":{"rendered":"A New START Towards Nuclear Sanity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Passage of the New START treaty at the end of the 111th Congress should have been what Ploughshares Fund president and nuclear weapons expert Joseph Cirincione<\/a> called a \u201cno-brainer<\/a>.\u201d It is, after all, a renewal of a treaty originally negotiated by President Reagan and it will make America safer.<\/p>\n

Yet the fact that herculean effort was required to win Senate ratification of a modest arms reduction treaty is a stark reminder of how tough it will be to strike needed, more far-reaching agreements \u2014 for example, slashing tactical nuclear weapons and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.<\/p>\n

The cynical Republican leadership mounted a ferocious and often mendacious opposition campaign<\/a> to ratification of START. It was striking during the debate just how far this extremist GOP has strayed from common sense or rational thinking on national security. In its misguided determination to weaken the President and score political points, Senators Kyl, DeMint and McConnell, to name just a few, chose to repudiate urgent calls from scores of high level military and bipartisan political leaders, including the current and eight former commanders of the Strategic Command, the Defense Secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency, who all urged swift approval of the treaty.<\/p>\n

In the end, only 13 Republicans voted to support the treaty; the majority chose retrograde party ideology over commonsense security.<\/p>\n

New START is significant, yet modest. It restores rigorous inspections that ended with the expiration of START I in December 2009, and reduces nuclear stockpiles to 1550 warheads and 700 launchers on each side. These new limits on nukes are about one-third lower than the previous ones negotiated in the 2002 Moscow Treaty, and that\u2019s a step forward to be heralded. After all, as General Eisenhower once observed\u2014even as he was building up the US nuclear arsenal\u2014nuclear weapons are not weapons of war, they are weapons of genocide. Just contemplate that one hundred warheads used against the hundred largest cities of either the US or Russia would mean the effectual end of that country and the killing of millions<\/a>. The survival 20 years after the end of the Cold War of 1550 warheads that each country still points at the other\u2014on hair-trigger alert\u2014should lead us to take far bolder steps toward a safer world, eventually free of nuclear weapons. This is no longer a radical idea; it is the new realism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But largely as a result of the price exacted by Republicans for Senate ratification, President Obama has had to promise billions to \u201cmodernize\u201d the nuclear arsenal\u2014approximately $85 billion<\/a> over ten years\u2014and commit<\/a> this country to pursuit of a missile defense program that remains unworkable and unproven<\/a>, and could also complicate Russian ratification which is slated to occur this month.<\/p>\n

Indeed, missile defense is a time-bomb embedded in the treaty. During negotiations, Moscow believed the Obama Administration had agreed to respect Russian objection to putting anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe, an understanding reflected in the treaty’s preamble. But in the desperate race to get GOP votes for ratification, the President personally promised that the agreement “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs,” which he pledged to pursue fully “regardless of Russian actions.” And in a resolution added to the treaty, the Senate went even further, spelling out this intention in detail.<\/p>\n

The irony of what has become a bipartisan fixation on missile defense was again exposed last week<\/a>, when a Government Accountability Office report raised questions about the system\u2019s cost overruns and functionality, after the seventh missile interceptor failure out of 15 tests since 1999. (This record of failure is especially significant considering the tests are conducted without even the most basic decoys and countermeasures or realistic operating conditions.) The GAO questioned a commitment to purchasing and deploying missile defense components prior to sufficient development and testing. As Dr. Philip Coyle III, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense from 1994-2001, testified at a Congressional hearing<\/a> more than two years ago, \u201cMissile Defense is a procurement program masquerading as a Research and Development program.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, the failure to ratify New START would have signaled a possible end to the process of disarmament by treaty (a goal of the extremist GOP since President George W. Bush scoffed at arms control treaties as “old think” and precipitously and unilaterally withdrew the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2001), and unraveled an already fragile non-proliferation regime. In contrast, passing START should logically create a platform for future arms control negotiations with Russia\u2014for example, on a tactical nuclear weapons agreement, and also the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty<\/a> which has been ratified<\/a> by 35 of 44 \u201cnuclear technology holder states,\u201d including Russia, France and Britain. Russia and the United States cannot credibly argue for restraining the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and other nuclear wannabes unless they keep working to substantially reduce their own nuclear arsenals.<\/p>\n

Yet these next steps towards nuclear sanity will be extremely challenging. Even though there is a virtual moratorium on nuclear testing (with the exception of North Korea), the intransigence of the GOP will no doubt increase as the party\u2019s presidential candidates attempt to demagogue<\/a> this issue. And on the tactical nukes<\/a> (short-range bombs), there will be opposition from some in Russia who will want to maintain a numerical advantage in Europe, which they deem \u201ccritical to defending against a potential conventional attack by NATO or China,\u201d according to the New York Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And yet, when President Obama stood in Prague\u2019s Wenceslas Square over a year ago and proclaimed his commitment to a nuclear-free world, what was striking was how this bold idea had become the widespread view among moderate mainstream security experts and officials. This new realism proposes a vision of a nuclear weapons-free world\u2014coupled with practical steps on how to achieve it\u2014as the best defense against rising nuclear threats. President Kennedy had it right in 1961 when he said in an address before the UN General Assembly, \u201cThe weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.\u201d<\/p>\n

____________________<\/p>\n

Katrina vanden Heuvel has been <\/em>The Nation’s editor since 1995 and its publisher since 2005. She is the co-editor of <\/em>Taking Back America\u2014And Taking Down the Radical Right (Nation Books, 2004) and editor of <\/em>The Dictionary of Republicanisms (NationBooks, 2005). She is also co-editor (with Stephen F. Cohen) of <\/em>Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev’s Reformers (Norton, 1989) and editor of <\/em>The Nation: 1865-1990, and the collection <\/em>A Just Response: The Nation on Terrorism, Democracy and September 11, 2001. A weekly columnist for WashingtonPost.com, she is a frequent commentator on American and international politics on MSNBC, CNN, ABC and PBS and public radio. Her articles have appeared in the <\/em>Washington Post, the <\/em>Los Angeles Times, the <\/em>New York Times<\/em> and the Boston Globe.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 thenation.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The herculean effort required to win Senate ratification of a modest arms reduction treaty is a stark reminder of how tough it will be to reach more far-reaching agreements on nuclear weapons in the 112th Congress.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-weapons-of-mass-destruction"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}