Religious Leaders Unite to Push for New START

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

Stories we're following today, Wednesday, December 8, 2010:

Evangelical, Catholic Leaders Call for Approval of New START - Stephanie Samuel for The Christian Post [link]

• Evangelical and Catholic leaders are calling for the ratification of the arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia in the lame duck session to minimize the threat of a nuclear attack.
• Representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Tuesday called for renewed commitment to the New START.
• The U.S. and Russia hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. A ratified treaty would push both the United States to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and, faith leaders say, display clear leadership in the global effort to deescalate nuclear threats.
• “It will encourage other nations to adhere to their responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The new treaty will make our nation and world safer by reducing nuclear weapons in a verifiable way. For the safety of our nation and world, we urge the Senate to take up the New START Treaty without delay,” stated Bishop Howard J. Hubbard, chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace.
• Leaders of the two faith bodies believe deescalating global nuclear threats is a matter of moral responsibility for human life.
• The next step, before further reductions, is to ratify the New START in the Senate. However, some conservative lobbyist groups, such as Heritage Action for America oppose the New Start because they believe that, under the agreement, the United States would have to relinquish more arms than Russia.
• However, Leith Anderson, President of the NAE countered fears, saying the treaty, once ratified, will allow America new inspection rights.

US-Russia Nuclear Treaty Could Hinge on Tax Cuts - Desmond Butler in The Washington Post [link]

• A U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty, President Barack Obama's top foreign policy priority, may now hinge on the fate of his top domestic goal, winning approval of a contentious tax cut plan.
• The debate comes as treaty supporters believe they have momentum in capturing enough votes for ratification. Obama would need at least nine Republicans to join all Democrats and independents to reach the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate.
• Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined Tuesday the long list of Republican foreign policy luminaries backing the treaty.
• Democrats were increasingly confident that the treaty could be ratified, if it could be brought for a vote. But once the tax cut issue is resolved, the treaty could face stalling tactics from Republican opponents, who have argued that it would undermine U.S. security interests.

The High Stakes of New START - Joshua Pollack in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists[link]

• With President Obama determined to bring New START to the Senate floor before the end of the year, the national security establishment is virtually unanimous in its support of the treaty.  Backers include everyone from the head of Strategic Command, seven of his predecessors, the co-chairs of the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and his predecessor, the directors of the nuclear weapons labs, and nearly every living former secretary of state. Public opinion, too, is strongly in favor of ratification.
• Reviewing four basic questions should help to place the treaty in perspective.
• The first and most essential question to ask is: What's the point of strategic nuclear arms control? Regardless of the merits of New START, has any US-Russian treaty really been necessary?
  
  • The answer is, yes, strategic nuclear arms control matters profoundly... Russia remains the sole force on Earth that could terminate the existence of the United States on any given day.
• Does New START really matter, now that the Cold War is over?
  
  • Yes, arms control still matters. When each side holds the other's future in its hands, the need for effective mutual reassurance endures.
• Haven't defensive technologies come far enough that we no longer need to accept mutual vulnerability between the United States and Russia?
  
  • Unfortunately, the answer is no. Even under the most optimistic assumptions about its performance, America's strategic ballistic missile defense, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, would be of no help against Russia's arsenal.
• Could a ratification vote safely be postponed until next year, or perhaps later?
  
  • Deferring it to next year and the new Congress would -- to coin a phrase -- "reset" the entire process of committee hearings, briefings, questions, answers, and unseemly horse-trading...Delay would probably be fatal to the treaty's chances.

Mixed Views on Tax Cuts, Support for START and Allowing Gays to Serve Openly: Public's Views on Lame-Duck Issues - The Pew Research Center [link]

• In a survey conducted before Obama and GOP leaders agreed to temporarily extend all Bush-era tax cuts, most Americans (80%) favor preserving at least some of the tax cuts. However, just a third (33%) of Americans say they favor keeping all of the expiring tax cuts; 47% favor keeping just the tax cuts for income below $250,000, while just 11% want to end all of the tax cuts.
• On another major pending issue before Congress, most Americans who have heard at least a little about the START treaty favor its ratification by the Senate: 54% favor ratification of the arms control treaty while 24% are opposed. Democrats and independents favor the treaty’s ratification by wide margins, while Republicans are evenly split.
• And by greater than two-to-one (59% to 23%), the public favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
• On foreign policy, the public has become less optimistic that the U.S. will succeed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan. Only about half (49%) say the U.S. will definitely or probably succeed while 39% say it will definitely or probably fail.
• The recent tensions on the Korean peninsula have drawn a tempered reaction from the public. Half (50%) of those who have heard about the recent North Korean artillery attack on a South Korean island say it is similar to other incidents that have happened from time to time in the past; fewer (41%) say the attack represents a major increase in hostilities.

The Nuclear Math - David Hoffman for Foreign Policy [link]

• A new WikiLeaks cable plunges us right back into that mysterious calculus of warhead counting: how many nuclear weapons do we really need to remain secure in today's world?
• The New START treaty would limit the United States and Russia each to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, operationally deployed. The treaty doesn't include thousands more strategic warheads in a U.S. reserve, and thousands more on top of that, the smaller tactical nukes, most of which are in Russia. One strong argument for ratification is that it will pave the way for a follow-on treaty that could reduce both these outlying stockpiles.
• The just-published cable indicates that some in the Pentagon are thinking along similar lines, if not quite as radical. Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller briefed NATO allies about the Nuclear Posture Review on July 16, 2009, and the cable describes his remarks. Miller told the allies that a range of 1,500-1,700 strategic warheads on each side was "militarily sufficient."
• But he added that risks to "military sufficiency and to robustness" would come only if the level went below 1,300 warheads. That's 250 warheads lower than the current treaty. Miller added that "future warhead reductions by the Russians would allow the U.S. to consider going lower."
• There's no military purpose, no security gain to the higher levels.
• It's time for some new thinking. If a top Pentagon official could tell the NATO allies more than a year ago that 1,300 warheads would be sufficient militarily, there ought to be no hesitation about New START -- and moving beyond it.
  

No Progress Evident in Iran Nuclear Talks - Paul Richter for The Los Angeles Times [link]

• A long-awaited meeting with Iran on its disputed nuclear program ended without visible progress on Tuesday, dealing a stinging setback to the Obama administration's strategy built on patient diplomacy and tough economic sanctions.
• U.S. and European officials had portrayed the two days of meetings as a test of whether the Islamic Republic would consider limits on an atomic research program that many nations fear is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon.
• Iran agreed to meet again next month in Istanbul, Turkey, but showed no interest in curbing its nuclear research — and it rebuffed a U.S. invitation to a formal bilateral meeting with American officials.
• After what one senior diplomat, characterizing the talks Monday and Tuesday, called "very difficult discussions," Tehran's chief delegate, Saeed Jalili, announced that Iran wouldn't even discuss halting uranium enrichment at the upcoming Istanbul gathering.
• Tuesday's outcome has cast doubt on two premises of the administration's strategy: that economic sanctions can pressure Iran to curb the program and that the U.S. and its allies can persuade the Iranians through diplomacy to bargain away their nuclear card, said Ray Takeyh, a former administration advisor on Iran now with the Council on Foreign Relations.
• Mark Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. nonproliferation official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, defended the administration's efforts, saying any engagement with the Iranians would have to begin slowly.
• But he added that the administration can't afford to have the diplomacy last too long because Iran is likely to have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon within a little more than a year.
• "They'd better get cracking," he said.

 View From The Dark Side

Stopping START - Owen Graham for "The Foundry" a Heritage Foundation Blog [link]

• The bilateral arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, known as New START, has critical implications for the security of the U.S. and its allies. In a recent article, Senator John Barrasso (R–WY) addresses concerns regarding the treaty.
• For Barrasso, this nuclear arms treaty hits close to home. On October 26, one-ninth of the United States’ land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles went offline at F. E. Warren Air Force. The Senator asserts that by ratifying New START, the Senate risks taking America’s nuclear deterrent offline. He is absolutely correct.
• This incident certainly reveals the need for the U.S. to modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal as soon as possible in order to maintain its nuclear deterrent. Yet the Administration’s plan is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of sustainment over modernization. Current White House policies bar steps that would lead to the development and procurement of “new nuclear warheads” or “capabilities” to meet new missions in the 21st century.
• Furthermore, the President’s threat to withhold money on nuclear program unless Senators vote to ratify New START rings hollow and is reprehensible.
• The treaty imposes significant restrictions on U.S. missile defense. These are found in the treaty, its protocols, and annexes. Paragraph 9 of the Preamble also establishes a bias against missile defense and codifies the old “balance of terror.” Building a comprehensive and layered missile defense would be much more difficult under the treaty.
• With respect to the verification regime, New START is far less verifiable than the original treaty. The U.S. would know significantly less about current and future Russian missiles under New START, and the Russians would be able to do much to advance and expand their strategic forces.
• The treaty, if ratified as it currently stands, would undermine the security of the U.S. and its allies. Instead of hastily forcing the Senate vote during the “lame duck” session, the new Senate should be given enough time to become educated on the treaty and address its numerous flaws.