• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Senate Should Not Rush to Ratify START

    Obama and Medvedev

    The New START treaty imposes significant limitations on U.S. ballistic missile defenses, and new limitations continue to be revealed as the treaty is scrutinized. The newest restriction—which has not yet been addressed by the Administration or proponents of the treaty—is a limitation on test-target missiles and their associated launchers, which are used to test U.S. ballistic missile defense systems. Testing is an essential element of the research and development needed to produce the best missile defenses. Consequently, such limitations are unacceptable.

    When viewed together, it is clear that the treaty’s Preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials suggest an attempt by Russia to limit or constrain current and future U.S. missile defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty should the U.S. expand its missile defenses “qualitatively” or “quantitatively.”

    There are grave concerns about the treaty in the Senate, and Senators have expressed reservations. Furthermore, there are reports that U.S. negotiators actually told the Russians that the U.S. had no intention of deploying strategic missile defenses in Europe. Only a careful review of the negotiating record can set the record straight.

    Beyond missile defense, there are also concerns about the inadequacy of the verification regime. The degree of verifiability is very low. The treaty also fails to account for Russia’s enormous tactical nuclear arsenal, which might be up to 10 times larger than America’s. Also troubling is the complete exclusion of mobile Russian rail-based ICBMs and launchers from New START language. In their absence, the Russians could deploy an unlimited number of these systems.

    In addition to these drawbacks, what is clear regarding New START and missile defense is that a pattern is emerging: the slow surfacing of specific provisions within New START that limit U.S. missile defense options, followed by explanations and excuses from the Administration. Considering the rising threat from Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, not to mention North Korea’s existing threat, limiting America’s ability to defend itself should be a non-starter.

    This treaty solidifies Russia’s role as a dominant nuclear power by putting the Russian arsenal on par with ours. It is a classic example of nuclear diplomacy going awry, and will only lead to Russia seeking further concessions down the road. Once that is understood, it will become clear why this treaty is wrong for the U.S.

    Cross-posted at CFR.org.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Senate Should Not Rush to Ratify START

    1. Robert. Edmonton, Al says:

      The New Start Treaty should not be ratified as it currently stands. Both parties should go back to the negotiating table and firstly codify Moscow Treaty limits and then integrate the old START verification regime.

      Republican Senators should also demand a complete outline for strategic modernization plans that include not only the nuclear weapons infrastructure but plans to replace the Minuteman III beyond 2020, the Next Generation Bomber and Trident SSBN and Trident D5 SLBM.

    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.

    ×