The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : New START Close to Passage

Text Size

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty looks like it's getting close to ratification this week. Josh Rogin counts the votes at Foreign Policy and finds seven Republicans on board; the treaty needs nine Republicans to get to the requisite 67 votes, and negotiations to amend the so-called "resolution of ratification" (instead of amending the treaty itself) seem on track to attract the missing two votes.

I know everyone is super-excited about this -- what gets the blood running like arms control debates? OK, almost anything does. And in this case that's quite proper. As Cathy Young laid out in an smart column two weeks ago, this treaty doesn't matter much one way or another, and "its victory in Congress will not be the achievement the Obama Administration will undoubtedly tout." The nice thing about passing the treaty, though, is that it means that (per the Bob Kagan argument mentioned in this space last month) the Obama administration will not be able to blame the Senate when the "reset" policy with Russia inevitably fails.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.21.10 @ 1:58AM

"As Cathy Young laid out in an smart column two weeks ago, this treaty doesn't matter much one way or another."

What utter gibberish! It DOES matter. Specifically, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that the Senate reject this utterly unacceptable treaty, for the following reasons:
1) It would dramatically weaken the US military (but then again, that is the purpose of arms reduction treaties), by reducing warhead numbers and strategic delivery system numbers down to inadequate levels (700 deployed plus 100 nondeployed systems; General Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the JCS, says that the absolute minimum is 870 systems).
2) It would restrict missile defense so badly that the US would have to completely stop the development of missile defense (vide the Preamble and Article V); the Russians have already warned that if the US continues to develop BMD, qualitatively or quantitatively, they will withdraw from the treaty.
3) If the Senate ratifies it, it will show that Obama and Putin (who has threatened a new arms race if the Senate doesn't ratify the treaty) can bully the Senate.
4) If the Senate ratifies it during the lame-duck session, it will show utter contempt for the American people - ratifying something that most Americans don't want, during the lame-duck session, even though American voters have already rendered a loud damnating verdict against the Democrats and President Obama.
5) It would encourage China to reach nuclear parity status with the US.
6) It would embolden America's enemies around the world.
7) It would mean that the Senate still adheres to the flawed, ridiculous, liberal ideology on which all arms reduction treaties are based - namely, that arms reduction and disarmament would make the world safe.

Ratifying the treaty would be a heinous betrayal of one of the core conservative principles - the principle of a strong defense. It would be a heinous betrayal of the country and the Party. Any Senator who votes for that treaty should be voted out of office.

Ellis Wyatt| 12.21.10 @ 9:07AM

I kind of understand the point that this treaty doesn't make a difference one way or another. The main point of contention being missile defense. The fact is, and Obama has admitted, we will not stop our missile defense development so the Russians may very well walk away from the treaty and it will be pointless. To me this is just another example of how unprepared Obama and his administration really are, they have effectively crafted a treaty that will be moot the day it is signed. Future Presidents will not have to honor it if Russia has already abandoned it. All that said, I don't think the lame duck Senate has any business discussing this matter.

Marko| 12.21.10 @ 8:46AM

Actually, it's all of them. Russia supplies Iran with arms, and is not a friend of the West. All of these named countries form an axis of the East that has the demise of the West as their unifying goal. Ever hear of the SCO? Look it up. It is a strategic alliance, not just an economic one.

RNB| 12.21.10 @ 8:11AM

I heard NPR this morning spinning Republican resistance to ratifying START as an attempt to deny the president 'another win.' Yes, they specifically referred to Obama's capitulation on extending the tax cuts as one of his 'wins' in a 'surprisingly successful lame-duck session of Congress...'