Mullen Urges New START Ratification in Post-Election Senate Session

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today, Friday, November 12, 2010:

Mullen Looks to Congress to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask’, Ratify Arms Treaty - Jim Garamone in American Forces Press Service [link]

• Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the Senate should ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty as soon as possible.
• Mullen did, however, urge the Senate to ratify the new START treaty as soon as possible. “The new START treaty is absolutely critical,” he said. “This December, we are coming up on a full year with no treaty with the Russians, and these treaties have historically been broadly bipartisan.”
• “Militarily, it is sound,” he said. “What it reduces the numbers to is more than enough for us to handle our military responsibilities. From an overall verification issue, I’m confident that we can verify its execution with the Russians.”

New START Ratification Important for our Security - State Represenative Chris Rector in The Bangor Daily News [link]

• The New START agreement is a critical and essential next step in strengthening U.S. nuclear security.
• It is time for Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to show nonpartisan leadership by supporting New START ratification before the resolution goes to the Senate floor.
• In fact, the entire U.S. military establishment supports New START: Adm. Michael Mullen, STRATCOM Commander Gen. Kevin Chilton and Missile Defense Agency head Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly all testified in favor of the treaty.
• Additionally, seven former STRATCOM commanders released a letter this summer urging quick Senate ratification, and numerous retired flag officers, including Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, Brig. Gen. John Adams and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, have endorsed New START for its national security benefits.
• In the interest of world security and safety — and our peace of mind — this is a treaty we all can agree on.

Bolton and Yoo Unbolted and Unglued on New START - Kington Reif Nukes of Hazard [link]

• By now you all know that arms control bulldozer John Bolton and torture apologist John Yoo penned a mendacious op-ed attacking the New START treaty in Wednesday’s New York Times. Though Bolton and Yoo have less credibility on national security issues than a three dollar bill, it’s still important to set the record straight.
• New START (or any foreign policy issue for that matter) did not play a role in the recently concluded election. In any event, the will of the voters appears to point in exactly the opposite direction of what Bolton and Yoo suggest. According to an AP-GfK poll conducted just after last weeks elections: Two-thirds want the Senate to ratify Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, including most Democrats, about 6 in 10 Republicans and independents — and even about half of conservative tea party supporters.
• It’s nice to know that a large majority of Americans are listening to our military, which has been telling them that New START is a good thing for the country. It’s too bad that Bolton and Yoo would prefer to reject that advice.

EU Responds to Iran About Talks on Nuclear Program - Stephen Castle in the New York Times [link]

• Talks on Iran’s nuclear program moved a step closer Thursday as the European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, agreed to one of two dates for discussions suggested by Tehran, a diplomat said, although Ms. Ashton proposed an alternative location.
• On Thursday Ms. Ashton’s officials were drafting a letter to Iran’s senior negotiator, Saeed Jalili, agreeing to talks Dec. 5, but proposing that they take place not in Istanbul, as Iran had suggested, but in another country, probably Switzerland.
• The movement follows agreement on new United Nations and European Union sanctions aimed at putting pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. This reflects fears that Iran’s uranium-enrichment program is designed to create the option of a weapons program, while Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to peaceful purposes.
• European officials believe that sanctions are beginning to have an impact. They say they are pursuing a dual strategy designed to force the government in Tehran into a dialogue.

A View from the Dark Side

Dangerous Nuclear Illusions - Roger Cohen in the New York Times [link]

• President Barack Obama’s commitment in his 2009 Prague speech “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” was a fine sentiment but a political mistake.
• The danger was that Obama, very early in his presidency, would be perceived as weak or unrealistic by rivals such as China or enemies like Iran, despite his commitment, for “as long as these weapons exist,” to “maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.”
• The “Global Zero” idea is [also] an unhelpful distraction because it inclines Republicans to believe Obama is not serious about maintaining and modernizing America’s nuclear arsenal. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said of the goal of a nuclear-free world: “I think it’s a dangerous concept to get into our minds — I talked with some Russians recently, and they scoffed at the idea.”
• Obama can’t renounce “Global Zero;” that would be silly. But he should pretend he never said it.