Why the GOP must stop START as it approaches a crucial vote

by Seth Mandel
December 9, 2010

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1155/why-the-gop-must-stop-start-as-it-approaches

Last week, U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that they believed Russia had moved tactical nuclear weapons near our NATO allies as recently as this past spring.

Since this revelation ostensibly meant two things—Russia could not be trusted to abide by such agreements, and that their tactical nuclear stockpile is the main missile threat to Europe right now—it should have cast doubt on the U.S.-Russia new strategic arms reduction treaty (New START). Instead, however, the treaty only seemed to gain momentum.

"The Obama administration and Republican congressional leaders are in the final stages of reaching an agreement to bring the president's nuclear arms treaty to a Senate vote this month, according to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," reported Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy magazine, only days after the announcement about Russia's tactical nukes.

In fact, proponents of the treaty are planning to get the deal to the floor of the Senate by Dec. 13, which would give them two weeks before the new Congress to debate and ratify. Why the rush? Because the treaty's base of support is the Democratic Party, and when the new Senate reduces the Democratic advantage in January, the treaty will be considered as good as dead.

With the treaty, then, on the verge of coming to the floor of the Senate, it's a good time to review why Republicans oppose the treaty, and why they are right.

First, before getting into the details of the treaty, we should point out that the Senate has not been given the information many senators have sought to make a fully informed decision on the merits of the deal. As South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint wrote recently: "Many of us have been concerned that the START Treaty would weaken our national security, and recent revelations of previously undisclosed talks with Russia on missile defense and movement of Russian tactical nuclear warheads only raise more questions that must be answered. I've asked for the full negotiating records, as have been provided to the Senate on previous treaties, but the Obama administration has continually denied that request and promised that missile defense was never part of the negotiations with Russia. But we have now learned that the State Department did in fact meet with Russia to specifically discuss missile defense, after months of denying these discussions ever took place."

So whether or not the Senate chooses to approve the treaty ultimately, it shouldn't be rushed. But the treaty itself is badly flawed, and here's why.

First of all, the news about Russia moving tactical nukes to NATO borders highlights one glaring weakness of the agreement. Though the U.S. and Russia would reduce their respective nuclear stockpiles under New START, Russia's tactical nukes would not be covered. Russia's current ten-to-one advantage over NATO in this area would be solidified and codified into international law. Under the treaty, they could also build more launchers for these nukes.

"Nukes remain the cornerstone of Russia's military and foreign relations strategy," writes the Heritage Foundation, which has been out in front of this issue since the beginning. "Even before New START negotiations began, Moscow had made clear it planned to reduce its stockpiles of aging, strategic nuclear weapons, replacing them with a combination of upgraded strategic and tactical nukes. New START accommodates that plan quite nicely. … Bottom line: The treaty assures that Russia will one day have a qualitative and quantitative advantage over the U.S."

Another troubling aspect of the treaty is missile defense. It can plausibly be argued that missile defense is the most important facet of our national security going forward. With nukes not just in unstable Russian hands, but those of North Korea, Pakistan, and possibly (in the near future) Iran, our own nuclear deterrent, while still significant, loses much of its value.

We are no longer in an age of "mutually assured destruction"—the concept that was to keep the U.S. and Russia from nuking each other during the Cold War. We are, however, in an age of asymmetric warfare, and the proliferation of missiles can—just ask Israel—level the playing field somewhat between great powers such as the U.S. and troublemaking terror cells.

Since we cannot count on true "nuclear zero"—a ridiculously unlikely pipe dream of President Obama's, which is one reason for his enthusiasm for New START—we must plan on being able to defend ourselves against enemies who can lob missiles at us from afar. This is slowly challenging the suicide bomb as the most effective way to attack free states.

And that brings us to how missile defense is treated in New START: as an afterthought and a bargaining chip. The treaty would, at least as the Russians understand it, allow Russia to walk away from the treaty obligations if we begin to build up our missile defenses, or even convert offensive silos into defense stations. President Obama released a "fact sheet" stating that this wasn't the case—and then retracted it. This is because any hint of reclaiming our control over missile defense will cause Russia to send the treaty to languish in its own government, effectively ending the agreement while giving Russia the opportunity to control the treaty and look like the reasonable party in all this.

There is also an argument to be made that the treaty is simply irrelevant—or at least the arms reduction aims of it are. If Russia isn't the most pressing threat to the U.S., why put so much energy into limiting both our nuclear stockpiles?

Simply put, New START at best distracts us from the real threats while putting on another show of security theater, and at worst hands control of our most pressing defense systems to an untrustworthy adversary.

Related Topics:  Op-Ed and Editorial receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list