- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Protect America, Not New START
Posted By Michaela Dodge On May 15, 2012 @ 2:30 pm In Protect America | 2 Comments
Recently, Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina, both of the Arms Control Association, criticized  the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) for taking hostage the implementations of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) in order to provide necessary funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The article misrepresents facts.
New START mandates U.S. unilateral reductions and does not serve U.S. interests. Both authors assert that if the National Defense Authorization Act passes in its entirety—that is, including provisions tying the treaty’s implementation funding with funding for the nuclear weapons complex—Russia would be allowed to rebuild “its nuclear forces above the treaty ceiling of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and increase the number of nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S.” This is just not so.
The State Department’s own data exchanges indicate that Russia was under  New START’s limits when the treaty entered into force and built above  its limits while the U.S. keeps unilaterally reducing its nuclear arsenal. Russia intends  to build up to New START’s limits regardless how much the U.S. spends on modernization of its nuclear weapons complex. The treaty’s degraded verification regime  does not provide for the strategic insight that the U.S. needs, given that Moscow launched the most robust nuclear modernization program since the end of the Cold War after the treaty entered into force.
Kimball and Collina complain about levels of spending for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. In fact, this complex has been under-funded for years. Even the Obama Administration acknowledged the importance  of this funding. It committed to request funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility, the very facility Kimball and Collina criticize as too expensive and of little value. Indeed, the Administration’s enduring commitment has not endured for a year since the treaty entered into force.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear weapons have contributed to global stability and prevented attacks on the U.S. homeland, forward-deployed troops, and U.S. allies. It is essential that the U.S. provides funding for its nuclear weapons complex and avoids “disarmament by atrophy.” As the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons go down, other countries will be incentivized to develop their own capabilities or build up nuclear weapons to achieve “parity” with the U.S.
Instead of unilaterally disarming, the U.S. should  move toward a “protect and defend ” strategy combining offensive, defensive, conventional, and nuclear weapons. This is the best way the U.S. could respond to the challenges of today’s environment.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/15/protect-america-not-new-start/
URLs in this post:
 criticized: http://www.defensenews.com/print/article/20120513/DEFFEAT05/305130005/Protect-New-START
 under: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/164722.htm
 above: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/176308.pdf
 intends: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272340/after-new-start-mark-b-schneider
 degraded verification regime: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/new-start-potemkin-village-verification?query=New+START:+Potemkin+Village+Verification
 importance: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/17/fact-sheet-enduring-commitment-us-nuclear-deterrent
 should: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/nuclear-games-a-tool-for-examining-nuclear-stability-in-a-proliferated-setting
 protect and defend: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/executive-summary-strategic-nuclear-arms-control-for-the-protect-and-defend-strategy
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.