Adm. Mullen: "This treaty has the full support of your uniformed military."

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

Stories we're following today:

White House Presses Senate to Approve Russia Arms Pact - The New York Times [link]

• The Obama administration encountered some Republican skepticism on Tuesday about its new arms control treaty with Russia but little outright opposition that might threaten the chances of ratification by the Senate.
• Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that “this treaty has the full support of your uniformed military.”
• “The U.S. is better off with this treaty than without it, and I am confident that it is the right agreement for today and for the future,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the committee.
• Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, offered his support and warned that failing to ratify it would be an “extremely precarious strategy.”
• Some Republican senators, though, remained unconvinced and accused the administration of either giving away too much or failing to accomplish enough. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) took issue with nonbinding language in the treaty and a separate Russian statement noting Moscow’s concerns about missile defense
• Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and the committee chairman, was cautious about timing as he tried to build bipartisan consensus. “We should do it when we’re ready,” he said in an interview. “My goal would be to do it as soon as possible. Does that mean I’d like to get it done before the election? Absolutely. But the important thing is to get it done right.”

Hey, Senate Republicans, the Cold War Is Over - Fred Kaplan in Slate [link]

• The Senate took up ratification hearings today on the U.S.-Russian strategic arms-reduction treaty that Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev signed in April, and it soon became clear that the Republicans will oppose the treaty on the basis of a claim that isn't true — that the treaty puts limits on the Pentagon's missile-defense program.
• So the objections come down to missile defense — and one bit of today's hearings raises the question of whether some of the most diehard Republicans understand this issue in the slightest. During the question-and-answer period, Sen. Jim DeMint, a first-term Republican from South Carolina, said he found it "frightening" that the Russians believe there's a relationship between offensive and defensive nuclear forces.
• The committee's chairman, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., patiently noted, "There is a relationship." If offensive forces are cut and defensive forces go up, "you can obliterate one party's sense of deterrence." This, he said, is "common sense."
• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates jumped in to point out that U.S. policy—not just under Obama but under Bush as well—is to build up missile defenses against "rogue nations," such as North Korea and Iran. To focus on Russia's nuclear forces, he said, "would be enormously destabilizing as well as unbelievably expensive."
• Note: See "Will START Treaty Weaken U.S. Missile Defense? Sen. Kerry Seems to Hope So - Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in The Hill [link] cross-posted in the Heritage Blog [link]

Major Powers Have Deal on Sanctions for Iran - The New York Times [link]

• The Obama administration announced an agreement on Tuesday with other major powers, including Russia and China, to impose a fourth set of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, setting the stage for an intense tug of war with Tehran as it tries to avoid passage of the penalties by the full United Nations Security Council.
• In the end, a deal was reached by the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Council — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — plus Germany.
• They agreed on sanctions against Iranian financial institutions, including those that supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. The newest element of the sanctions would require countries to inspect ships or planes headed into or out of Iran if there were suspicions that banned materials were aboard. Another new element bars all countries from permitting Iran to invest in nuclear enrichment plants, uranium mines and other nuclear-related technology.
• But even if the Security Council adopts the new sanctions, it is unclear whether the provisions — including a mandate to inspect Iranian ships suspected of entering international ports with nuclear-related technology or weapons — would inflict enough pain to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment and cooperate with international inspectors.

South Korea to Officially Blame North Korea for March Torpedo Attack on Warship - Washington Post [link]

• South Korea's foreign minister Yu Myung-hwan said Wednesday the sinking of one of its warships in March was the result of a North Korean attack, adding that his country now has enough evidence to seek action by the U.N. Security Council against the North.
• Yu spoke out a day before South Korea planned to release the results of an investigation that U.S. and East Asian officials say has uncovered strong evidence showing that North Korea launched a torpedo that sank the 1,200-ton Cheonan near a disputed sea border between the two nations.
• South Korea has found a serial number -- written in a font used in North Korea -- on torpedo propeller fragments retrieved near the sunken ship and has also found traces of explosives in the wreckage that are identical to explosives found seven years ago in a stray North Korean torpedo, government officials told South Korean media.

Don’t Sink Diplomacy - Joel Wit in The New York Times [link]

• In the aftermath of the Cheonan sinking, the United States and South Korea must recognize that a return to dialogue would serve our interests. It is the only realistic way to rein in North Korea’s objectionable activities.
• In the 16 years I have worked with North Korea, I have made 18 trips there, and I remain convinced that sustained diplomatic engagement is the only way to encourage the North to moderate its threatening behavior. The alternative is far worse: an isolated North Korea that is heading down a path of defiance.
• The Cheonan sinking provides an opportunity for the Obama administration to shift its approach to North Korea. Now, we should avoid steps that might lead to a major escalation of tensions.
• Instead of demanding new preconditions for talks — an apology for the Cheonan, for example — we should mount a gradual pragmatic effort to engage in new discussions, not as a reward for bad behavior or to talk for the sake of talking, but to make us more secure.

Nuclear Oddities

Nuke the Oil Spill - Christopher Brownfield in The Daily Beast [link]

• On Day 1 of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, my gut instinct was to nuke the well shut. This was not simply an aggressive urge to brandish the most beastly of weapons in our mighty American arsenal, but a serious way to snuff out an enormous problem that grows worse by the day.
• It’s time to destroy the well and put the matter to rest… there are two major organizations in the world that have highly developed skills at demolishing things—the U.S. and Russian militaries.
• But using nuclear weapons, even for peaceful purposes, would be problematic… If President Obama were to use a nuke to close this well, he would give other states an excuse to seek nuclear weapons of their own. After all, it was an argument for “peaceful nuclear explosions” that allowed India to justify its acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1970s.