Mapping a National Security Failure: Ratification of the New START Treaty

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee):

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen says the treaty is vital to U.S. national security; I agree and am proud that as a result of ratification we have been successful in securing commitments from the administration on modernization of our nuclear arsenal and support of our missile defense programs, two things that would not have happened otherwise. In fact, thanks in part to the contributions my staff and I have been able to make, the New START treaty could easily be called the ‘Nuclear Modernization and Missile Defense Act of 2010…

With New START’s ratification we will once again have well-trained inspection teams—‘boots on the ground’—as a check on Russia, an exercise President Reagan called, ‘Trust, but verify’…

…I saw this entire process as an opportunity to push for long overdue investments in modernization of our existing nuclear arsenal and made clear I could not support the treaty’s ratification without it…

…the president sent a letter to Congress stating his commitment to the development and deployment of a robust U.S. missile defense system. I introduced an amendment codifying the key components of the letter and requiring that the president, prior to ratification of the treaty, certify to the Senate that our missile defense systems will continue to be developed, improved and deployed…[167]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia):

Isakson supports the New START treaty, because it in no way hinders the ability of the United States to move forward with a robust missile defense system. Furthermore, the Russian unilateral statement made on April 7, 2010, does not impose a legal obligation on the United States. The resolution of ratification also ensures modernization and maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as well as the unfettered ability of the United States to deploy missile defense.[168]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska)

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today voted to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in the Senate after several amendments were approved that addressed his concerns.

After yesterday’s cloture vote, two amendments passed that addressed important concerns. An amendment (S. AMDT. 4864) offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) requires the U.S. President to certify that strategic nuclear weapon delivery systems (bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles) will be modernized and an amendment (S. AMDT. 4908) offered by Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fl.) addressed the disparity between Russian and U.S. tactical nuclear weapons and requires negotiations between Russia and the U.S. to occur within one year of ratification of the Treaty.

Johanns co-sponsored two additional amendments that were adopted today. The first amendment (S. AMDT. 4892) was offered by Senator Kyl to require an annual report be compiled regarding the modernization of the United States’ nuclear weapons stockpile and clarify that the United States can withdraw from the Treaty if the modernization plan is not adequately funded.

Johanns also co-sponsored an amendment (S. AMDT. 4904) offered by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that added a condition to the Resolution of Ratification requiring the U.S. President to certify to the Senate and to Russia that the continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems will not be threatened by the Treaty. It also ensures that the continued improvement of U.S. missile defense systems does not constitute a basis for questioning the effectiveness and viability of the Treaty or for Russia to withdraw from the Treaty. Additionally, the amendment states that the preamble linkage between offensive and defensive weapons imposes no legal obligations on the United States; therefore not restricting the continued development of our missile defense systems.[169]

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana):

The New START agreement came about because the United States and Russia, despite differences on many geopolitical issues, do have coincident interests on specific matters of nuclear security. We share an interest in limiting competition on expensive weapons systems that do little to enhance the productivity of our respective societies. We share an interest in achieving predictability with regard to each other’s nuclear forces, so we are not left guessing about potential vulnerabilities. We share an interest in cooperating broadly on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. And we share an interest in maintaining lines of communication between our political and military establishments that are based on the original START agreement.

Over the last seven months the Senate has performed due diligence on the New START treaty. Most importantly, we have gathered and probed military opinion about what the treaty would mean for our national defense. We have heard from the top military leadership, as well as the commanders who oversee our nuclear weapons and our missile defense. We have heard from former Secretaries of Defense and STRATCOM commanders who have confirmed the judgment of current military leaders. Their answers have demonstrated a carefully-reasoned military consensus in favor of ratifying the treaty. Rejection of such a consensus on a treaty that affects fundamental questions of nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary action for the Senate to take.

Moreover, the treaty review process has produced a much stronger American political consensus in favor of modernization of our nuclear forces and implementation of our missile defense plans. This includes explicit commitments by the President and Congressional appropriators. In the absence of the New START Treaty, I believe this consensus would be more difficult to maintain. We have the chance today not only to approve the New START Treaty, but also to solidify our domestic determination to achieve these national security goals.[170]