“New START” is the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty that President Obama signed in April of this year with Russia. It is awaiting ratification in the Senate, and the Obama administration wants to get it approved during the lame duck session Congress.* It would reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons that each of the U.S. and Russia could have (to 1550), as well as limiting the number of delivery platforms that each country could have to 700 (some missiles and planes can carry more than one warhead).
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has been the Republicans’ lead person on this issue. In July Senator Kyl said that the treaty was “relatively benign,” but earlier this month he said that he did not think the Senate would have to time to get it approved “given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization.”
The key word here is “modernization.” Our nuclear weapons are old – and getting older. Every nuclear warhead we have is over 20 years old, and we haven’t conducted a test of them since 1992. Instead of testing, we use computer modeling. We have programs to extend the lives of the warheads we have. But you can only extend the life of warheads so far. Eventually, they will wear out. Or if they don’t wear out, they will, at least, become unreliable.
The problem is that the Democrats, and the Obama administration, don’t seem to believe this. Too many of them seem to think a modernization program would restart the arms race. They think that if we do what is necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons, other nations will decide they should have nuclear weapons, too. And that, if we don’t do the kind of things that are necessary to keep our nuclear warheads and our deterrent reliable, then other nations will follow our “good example” and decide that they shouldn’t get nuclear weapons, either. Which is just silly.
I really find it hard to believe that the reason North Korea wants nuclear weapons is because we have them. Or that Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons programs because we are talking about modernizing our nuclear weapons. For that matter, does India have nuclear weapons because of us – or Pakistan? And vice versa.
Having a reliable nuclear weapons defense capability is not the reason that North Korea and Iran are trying to get nuclear weapons, but it is the reason that countries like South Korea and Japan are not trying to get nuclear weapons. So far, countries like South Korea and Japan have been willing to, and able to, rely on the US’s nuclear umbrella. As long as we keep our nuclear weapons reliable – and modern, they will continue to rely on our nuclear protection. If our protection isn’t reliable, they may feel a need to get their own nuclear weapons.
Senator Kyl understands the need to modernize our nuclear weapons – and he also understands the reluctance of many Democrats to agree. They may say they support modernization, but they don’t support the necessary programs and spending to really get the job done.
Therefore, Senator Kyl is using the vote on the New START treaty to get the Administration, and the Democrats in Congress, to commit to a real modernization program. The problem is that modernization is not something that can be done in one or two years. It has to be done over an extended period of time, and it requires spending money over an extended period of time.
While I do not know for sure, I assume the problem Senator Kyl is having is trying to figure out how to lock the Democrats in to a long-term modernization program. It is one thing to get the President to agree, but how do you get the Democrats in Congress to commit? And even if they say they will support it, can you rely on them, especially when they really do not support the program? How do you get the money appropriated year after year to get this program done? I don’t know, and I think this is what is troubling Senator Kyl. And that is why the process is taking so long. Senator Kyl is working to come up with a way to lock in the program and the money.
I am not an expert on New START, but I understand there probably are certain advantages to it. However, there are advantages to modernizing our nuclear weapons, too. If using approval of New START is the best way to get approval for a proper modernization program for our nuclear deterrence capability, then we should do it. Getting approval for modernization is more important than approving this treaty.
-------
* As I have commented before, there are lots of things the Obama Administration wants the lame duck session of Congress to do.
Note: Here is a list of sources I used for this post:
Elaine M. Grossman, “Is U.S.-Russian Nuclear Pact Dead This Year?”, National Journal, November 18, 2010.
“Disarming Ourselves,” The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2008.
Jon Kyl and Richard Perle, “Our Decaying Nuclear Deterrent,” The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2009.
America’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, United States Institute of Peace, 2009
Robert M. Gates, “U.S. Needs to Update Nuclear Arsenal,” October 30, 2008.
Comments