Yesterday, the New York Times published a significant and compelling editorial supporting the Senate ratification of the New START treaty. I highly recommend that you take the time to read this short yet informative editorial. The piece is also listed under the RESOURCES tab of this blog. It is highly relevant given Wednesday’s (8/4/10) pending mark-up and vote on the ratification resolution. It will be imperative to persuade enough of the uncommitted or even now opposing Senators to support this vital treaty which will provide both greater security for the U.S. as well as increased stability and transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations.
The strongest argument for the ratification of the treaty is that without New START we will be blind in our verification and inspection capabilities which might encourage those nations that are thinking of developing their own nuclear weapons to move ahead towards this dangerous option.
The New York Times editorial also clearly stated that the U.S. should not be building any new nuclear weapons and that our current program is both robust and costly. The nation’s top laboratory leaders have said that our existing weapons are reliable. However, the Republicans want to increase the costs beyond reason as a possible trade-off for ratification. Such expenditure is unnecessary from our security viewpoint and is equivalent to money going down a rat hole of unneeded expenditure at a time economic need when budget restraint would be far more prudent.
By: Harry C. Blaney