• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Senator Kyl Right to Question Russia's Latest New START Claims

    It’s been only a month since the Senate gave its nod to ratifying New START, a strategic arms control treaty with Russia that the Administration hopes to bring into force next week. But already Moscow is discounting the clarifications the Senators stipulated and added to their resolution of ratification.

    Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) wisely raised concerns about this in his latest floor statement. He pointed out that Russia’s ratification law cites “understandings” that the Russian and U.S. officials came to during negotiations that justify Russia’s claim that the treaty limits U.S. missile defenses and applies to any new type of strategic offensive arms.

    But the understandings in the Senate’s resolution of ratification state that New START imposes no limits on missile defense deployments (outside a narrow provision in Article V), that the language on missile defense in the treaty’s preamble is not legally binding, and that New START does not impose any new limitations on Prompt Global Strike systems or exempted systems. The Russian Duma’s draft ratification law states that any new type of strategic offensive arms must be approved by New START’s implementing body, the Bilateral Consultative Commission, prior to deployment.

    So, as Senator Kyl asked, what “understandings” is Russia talking about? Unfortunately, the Administration rejected Senators’ request to share its negotiating record. That would have cleared this up before the treaty was voted on. Now, after the Senate has given its advice and consent, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no meeting of minds on the implications of the treaty. Worse, as Senator Kyl points out, “What was to serve as a vehicle for ‘reset’ may, in fact, serve to promote increasing discord.”

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Senator Kyl Right to Question Russia's Latest New START Claims

    1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Senator Kyl Right to Question Russia’s Latest New START Claims | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    2. Dan@Phoenix says:

      Why am I not surprised?

    3. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      It's a shame that what is supposed to be the most deliberative legislative chamber in our country made the decision to ratify this treaty without all of the facts…in a lame duck session of Congress no less.

      Who "throws the penalty flag" when we abide by our understanding of this treaty or when Russia abides by its understanding when those understandings are diametrically opposed? Us? Them? BCC? Increasing discord indeed.

    4. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Sure enough! Obama has played false again! This treaty is not even vaguely in the American Interest! Maybe there is more Impeachment material in the Negotiating Record and that is why the Administration won't release it. If lying were an impeachable offense, Obama would be gone ten thousand times! But, negotiating a bad treaty with a Foreign Interest of long standing enmity? Hey, that's a High Crime! Then lying about that? Covering it up? How many High Crimes will it take?

      Using Treaties to undermine American Sovereignty? Aw, just add it to the long list of Obama's High Crimes. Maybe one of them will stick.

    5. Dinah Garrison Fairb says:

      Which part of this story is most disgusting? It's a toss-up, but how about the Senators who voted for this New START even though the administration refused to share its negotiating record? Didn't they wonder why they were kept out of the loop? Or did they have a pretty good idea and vote for it anyway? What on earth is happening to our government? I am very worried.

    6. Robert, Edmonton Alb says:

      I am truly sickened by this. Obama wrote in college how we should disarm and now as president he will make it happen regardless of its impact on our national security.

      Heritage needs to publish a "Strategic Modernization Roadmap" for Congress outlining not only the 20 year neglect of the Triad and nuclear weapons infrastructure but how we can correct it going forward by reinvigorating and modernizing all key nuclear systems including delivery vehicles and vehicle carriers. This would include nuclear laboratory modernization and new warhead development and production.

      On another website we were discussing Russia vs US modernization and came up with this list:

      1) Bulava SLBM (up to 10 warheads)

      2) RS-24 ICBM (up to 10 warheads)

      3) SS-18 heavy ICBM replacement (if same throw weight as SS-18 then at least 10 warheads)

      4) Blackjack bomber modernization

      5) PAK-DA (new strategic bomber)

      6) Borei class new SSBN

      7) New maneuvering RV (re-entry vehicle)

      8) Active warhead production lines

      9) Aggressive advanced warhead design R&D


      1) New bomber (paper study)

      2) New ICBM 2030 maybe

      3) New SSBN 2037 maybe

      4) New SLBM 2040 maybe

      5) New cruise missile maybe

      6) No new warheads

      7) No active production lines

      8) Advanced concept initiative (warhead R&D) canceled

      Not a very encouraging picture is it? Another observation; why if New Start limits deployed warheads to 1550 are the Russians building 10 warhead capable missiles? How quickly in a crisis could they upload from their reserve stockpile (no limit on reserve warheads) and overwhelm our only 700 launchers?

    7. Most I can express is, I don't know what to express! Except of course, for the great tips which have been shared on this blog. I'm able to think of a trillion fun tips on how to read the articles on this site. I believe I will finally take action employing your tips on those issues I could never have been able to manage alone. You were so thoughtful to let me be one of those to profit from your valuable information. Please know how much I am thankful.

    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.