• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Lame Duck Threat to Missile Defense

    All signs point to an effort by the Obama administration to ram their New Start agreement with Russia through the Senate in a lame duck session after the November elections. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has placed a floor vote on the treaty atop his list of lame duck priorities, and the continuing resolution passed in September included $624 million in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administrations. Analysts believe that money could secure the support of some previously skeptical Republicans. But nuclear modernization is just one of many problems with New START. The limits that New START place on missile defense, for example, are also completely unresolved.

    Just this week six conservative senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking to review documents relating to secret talks between U.S. and Russian officials on missile defense revealed earlier this month. According to The Washington Times, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R–AL), James Inhofe (R–OK), David Vitter (R–LA), John Cornyn (R–TX), Roger Wicker (R–MS), and John Thune (R–SD) asked Secretary Clinton: “We are writing to request information pertaining to press reports suggesting the imminent conclusion of a missile defense agreement between Russia and the United States.” Heritage Foundation analyst Baker Spring explains the significance of these newly revealed negotiations:

    That the Obama Administration would be engaged in negotiations with Russia on genuine cooperation in the area missile defense should be expected and encouraged.

    It is objectionable, however, to use these negotiations as a cover for doing the opposite of what the Administration advertised—i.e., curtailing missile defenses. As such, there is clear justification for the Senators’ demand that they and their colleagues receive the record of these negotiations.

    From the beginning, the Obama administration has sworn up and down that New START does not “contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.” But this is just plain false, as subsequent White House backtracking has established. The fact is that both the treaty’s preamble and Russia’s unilateral statement at the signing of the treaty explicitly link missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Article V specifically limits our ability to convert ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers into defensive interceptors.

    Given the trends in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and rapid improvements in the means to deliver them (think Iran and North Korea), the U.S. government must maintain its right to defend the people, territory, institutions and infrastructure of both the United States and its allies. New START fails to do this as it limits missile defense and encourages a return to a Cold War retaliation-based policy where U.S. cities and people were held hostage. This is unacceptable. Until the Obama administration is more transparent regarding the ongoing negotiations with Russia regarding missile defense, New START must wait.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to The Lame Duck Threat to Missile Defense

    1. John, Florida says:

      Looks like the professor wants to teach us another lesson. Diminishing our capabilities in back door agreemnets while lying to our faces. 2012 can't come soon enough!

    2. Lisa, Portland says:

      Please explain how, "New START fails to do this as it limits missile defense and encourages a return to a Cold War retaliation-based policy where U.S. cities and people were held hostage." This statement is unsupported in your opinion piece and contradicts every reliable source I've consulted (e.g., not a blog).

    3. Richard, Gilbert says:

      In regard to Lisa's comment, without missile defense, the USA and its allies are obligated to revert to the MAD policies of the 1960's. Thus we are "held hostage" by a potential enemy's adherence to MAD. With missile defense, an enemy cannot be assured his first strike will be successful, without massive retaliation by the US and its allies.

    4. James Durkee says:

      NMD doesn't work. The harm done to U.S. nonproliferation credibility by a failure to ratify the START treaty greatly outweighs any benefit that national missile defense could provide. The only way to secure the American homeland from nuclear threats is to make progress towards a nuclear free world.

    5. Pingback: Six Senators Think Obama is Lying About the START Treaty | The 41

    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.

    ×