Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, sent a letter to the United States Senate urging ratification of the New START arms control treaty. The letter came amid intense efforts on both sides to sway senators on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which could face a vote as early as Tuesday. Seven Republican senators have publicly supported it, putting the administration within two votes of victory. The White House says it has the votes for passage. But the pact has gotten caught up in the political tempest of the lame-duck session, with Republicans angry that the Obama administration is pushing the treaty and other favored issues before the Democrats' Senate majority shrinks next year. "Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) declared in a floor speech. He and the second-ranking Republican in the chamber - Jon Kyl (Ariz.) - came out Sunday against the treaty. (Sheridan and Sonmez) State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley told reporters that the administration believes it has answered GOP issues adequately, and charged that further objections "are more about politics than substance". The Republicans are showing their underlying disorganization. Beyond the strong chorus against the treaty, there are, according to the Washington Post, "several camps". Some Republicans, including Jim DeMint (S.C.), have said that arms-control treaties are outdated and, instead, want to develop a highly advanced missile-defense shield - something along the lines of President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" concept. But others, although critical of New START, seem more upset that the Obama administration stopped negotiating with Republican leaders and moved to get the pact approved by year's end. McConnell had called for the treaty to be considered early next year, when Republicans would have more votes. Currently, at least nine Republican votes are needed to pass the treaty; next year, the number will be 14. "What he's trying to say is: We don't want to see this by the end of the year. We want to see it with our shaping next year," said Henry Sokolski, an arms-control official in the George H.W. Bush administration who heads the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. The vote comes as some Republicans - including Sen. John Thune (S.D.), a prominent opponent of the treaty - are positioning themselves for a presidential run and emphasizing their bona fides on national security. A few influential Republican groups, notably the Heritage Foundation's grass-roots arm, have taken strong positions against the pact. The administration had worked for months to win the support of Kyl, the main Republican negotiator, ultimately pledging to spend an additional $14 billion to ease his concerns about modernizing the country's aging nuclear complex. But when the senator from Arizona declared in November that there wasn't time to pass the treaty during the lame-duck session, the administration decided to work around him. Stephen Young, of the Union of Concerned Scientist, called the discussion, "hands down, the most partisan debate." The Senate this week rejected two amendments that would have required a return to the negotiating table. One can imagine the Senate arguing to amend the language of its approval of the treaty, but the detail of the treaty itself? Yet I have a feeling that isn't nearly the separation of powers debate one might be tempted to imagine. ____________________ Notes: Sheridan, Mary Beth and Felicia Sonmez. "Mullen urges Senate to ratify arms treaty". The Washington Post. December 21, 2010. WashingtonPost.com. December 21, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005957.html
It is my understanding they now have enough non Tea Party Republican votes (e.g. Snow) to pass the treaty in the Senate. Republicans have been stalling this treaty for months now and not because of any real national security concerns. Republicans are playing politics with national security which is nothing new for them.
I haven't followed this debate terribly closely, but I am aware there was recently a revelation about the previous START treaty being grossly violated for years by the then-Soviets.
Not a serious issue for the new treaty - START remains valuable, despite being violated by the US and the Soviets numerous times. The US violations were more serious - Reagan's "reinterpretations" providing the basis for a slew of them in the subsequent Reagan Era of US military expansion - but both countries were curbed enough to make a significant difference. http://books.google.ca/books?id=8wU...&resnum=7&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.ca/search?q=start...10&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs= http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk...on-for-export-of-strategic-weaponry-to-israel One potential parallel might be with the Great Lakes disarmament treaty between the US and Canada, in frequent violation since it was signed, and probably in daily violation now, but the major piece of framework in the establishment of the longest peaceful border on earth.
The Russians can reduce their stockpiles while their friends like Iran and North Korea gear up to produce more atomic warheads. So Russia shows that it is trying to reduce the threat of nuclear war while all along preparing through its allies a way to increase their atomic arsenal of weapons and missiles.
The new START treaty is BS anyway. The Russians give up practically nothing while the US forfeits a great deal. Why is the US still worried about Russian nuclear deterrence anyway? The US should be seeking arms treaties with the Chinese and Indians, not washed-up Russians. ~String
This is what the Union for Concerned Scientists say about the treaty. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/start-follow-on-fact-sheet.pdf It does not appear to me that the US is giving up much at all.
