• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • New START: Same Baseless Arguments

    The New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) has not advanced U.S. national interests since it entered into force. Yet, for the treaty’s proponents, no amount of evidence is enough to recognize treaty’s flaws.

    In a recent op-ed, Terri Lodge of the American Security Project assumes that U.S. military planners would be blind without the treaty and would have to plan for the worst case scenario. In fact, the treaty requires unilateral U.S. reductions and allows build-up of Russia’s strategic forces. In addition, since the treaty entered into force, Russia launched the most extensive nuclear modernization program since the end of the Cold War. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rampant anti-Americanism and periodic threats to use nuclear weapons against U.S. NATO allies do not leave much space for optimism regarding strategic planning.

    Lodge assumes that “New START verification measures enhance transparency regarding our U.S. and Russian deployed strategic systems.” This is just not so. New START’s verification regime is severely degraded compared to the original START’s standard. Data exchanges have not provided insights into Russia’s strategic build-up or locations of its strategic systems.

    The treaty “does not stipulate the ‘right level’ of modernization funding,” Lodge would have you believe. The Senate’s advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty, however, is contingent upon President Obama’s own certification that he will provide nuclear modernization funding pursuant to the updated Section 1251 of the fiscal year (FY) 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. While the Administration pledged $7.9 billion for nuclear infrastructure modernization in FY 2013, the President’s current budget request misses this mark by $300 million. This calls into the question the political and legal framework in which New START operates.

    Moreover, the Russians have repeatedly used New START to limit U.S. missile defense policies, because the treaty’s preamble states that U.S. missile defense capabilities must come down as the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons come down under the treaty. President Obama, for his part, indicated his willingness to accommodate Russian objections to the U.S. expanding its missile defense capabilities after he is re-elected.

    As Heritage’s Baker Spring observes, “What is now clear is that whatever commitments [the President] makes to the American people regarding ballistic missile defense in the coming months will be jettisoned in favor of commitments to the Russian government to curtail U.S. and allied missile defense capabilities following the election.”

    New START is a failure and must be seen in the context of the failure of the Obama Administration’s “reset” policy with Russia and its desire to achieve a world without U.S. nuclear weapons. The “reset” policy has required too many concessions with few benefits for the U.S. and is in dire need of reassessment. Reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal should be driven by an effort to maximize the deterrent value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, not by disarmament policy as an end in itself.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to New START: Same Baseless Arguments

    1. zbigniewmazurak says:

      A great opportunity to write a great blogpost has been wasted. Why? Because the author, after refuting Lodge's completely false claims, then subscribes to the same irredeemably flawed root notion – that nuclear disarmament and nuclear arsenal reductions are OK (or even worth pursuing). But this is not true; nuclear arsenal cuts and disarmament are NOT OK and NOT worth pursuing. In fact, they should be avoided.

      Yet, the author unilaterally disarms herself intellectually by conceding to Lodge's irredeemably flawed base notion: that nuclear disarmament and arsenal cuts are OK and even good.

      And as long as the Heritage Foundation professes this view, it will, alas, continue to miserably lose the public debate.

      New START itself is not the biggest problem here. It's just the tip of the iceberg. The very notion of nuclear disarmament and arms reduction is the main problem here.

      The author also fails to recognize that any cuts – let alone as deep as those mandated by New START – reduce the deterrent value of the US nuclear arsenal. There's no way around this fact. Fewer warheads=less deterrent value. It's a fact.

    2. Michaela Bendikova says:

      You are misreading the blog. What lies behind our position is the recognition that nuclear reductions should not be driven by arms control. They should be driven by broader strategic and targeting requirements. These requirements are flexible and will change overtime. We are not saying that New START is good. In fact, we have been one of the strongest voice of opposition to New START for reasons beyond just reductions to U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. We have repeatedly opposed unilateral reductions mandated by New START and have been strong proponents of the nuclear complex modernization.

    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.