• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Let’s Not START This Again, Mr. President

    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its second hearing this week on the New START Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation.  Led by the chair of the committee, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and ranking minority member, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), a number of senators addressed several areas of concern with the witnesses, the Honorable James N. Miller, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; General Kevin P. Chilton, Commander US Strategic Command; and Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency.

    Gen. O’Reilly emphatically made the point that this treaty in no way hampers the United States’ ability to continue its current missile defense plans or build upon them in the future.  While Article 5 of the treaty does prevent the United States from converting Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launchers to missile defense launchers, Gen. O’Reilly claimed that this was never part of the Missile Defense Agency’s overall plan and therefore does not actually restrict the present or future behavior of the United States.  In the question and answer session, Gen. O’Reilly testified that he has briefed key Russian officials numerous times, beginning in October 2009, and that the Russians understood the U.S. plans regarding the 3rd and 4th phases (to be completed in 2018 and 2020, respectively) of the U.S. phased adaptive approach to missile defense.

    The bigger question still is why, if the Russians have been briefed and fully understand the implications of the U.S. missile defense plan, this administration still refuses to release the negotiating record.  As argued by Senator Risch (R-ID), it is clear from the Russian unilateral statement, which claims that Russia will abide by the treaty so long as the United States does not develop its missile defense system qualitatively and quantitatively, there are two drastically opposing views between the US and the Russian Federation on what is “acceptable” action concerning the U.S. missile defense system.  If this is the position of the Russian government, then the release of the negotiation record becomes even more imperative before the United States ratifies this treaty.  Anything short of full disclosure to the Senate jeopardizes U.S. national security.

    Ricky Trotman is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Let’s Not START This Again, Mr. President

    1. danny roberts says:

      So let me get this straight, Obama and his regime are going to let Putin, and or the Russian leadership dictate our foreign policy, looks like we're backing down on every issue of national security, we all know now for sure, Janet's a joke.Ala 17 afgans on the run, wow!!

    2. Pingback: No BS, The Real Deal with “Make Money on The Net” | Internet Marketing is Nuts!

    3. politicaljules tx says:


      No defense treaties

      No rights of the child treaties

      No kyoto treaties

      No climate change treaties

      etc etc etc.

      The only treaty I want to see any of you demonrats put forward is one with the Constitution that you will support and defend it from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

      Sit down, mouth closed and start packing your offices. Not one more peep from any of you.

    4. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      START a new Cold War, well I suppose "Spooky Dude" will make a lot of money on it. Weird when you think of it, a United States President is trading away his Constitutional Mandate to defend us. And you look at this 'bargain' and say "What did we get out of it?"

      Just suppose there was such a thing as a war on terror, and the measure was creating terror. Who has generated raw fear in America? Good old Dim Job from Iran can't touch the Progressives. People who are armed don't experience terror. "It worked so good Domestically, let's try it in Foreign Policy!" The War On Terror is about as effective as the War On Poverty, it means we will have terror as far as the eye can see!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.